How to end our Police problem

Let's back up a second.

What is our "police problem?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, they are each in it for themselves and form alliances as it suits their individual interests.

In fairness to the agenda that wants to limit drilling in pristine wilderness, and to ensure women equal pay for equal work (Obama's opening salvo, moments after John Roberts botched the Oath of Office) -- what kind of sponsor would be interested in rewarding Obama for these types of policies, and how does that mechanism work? I mean, they're not going to make a direct deposit into his personal account. So even if you could imagine a large corporation backing this, at what point would Obama become aware that some corporate benefactor had just rewarded him? I think the intent of the remarks by Jeeves was to say that all policymaking is corporate sponsored. This was a memorable event that seems to me to illustrate the opposing view. To my knowledge no corporation or sponsor -- and, I presume, no politician outside of the Democratic Party -- has ever praised Obama for his opening acts (rescinding Bush's outgoing executive orders).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As of yet, I have yet to see him post anything of value. I haven't seen him contribute to the physics or math forum, or contribute anything valuable on any other science subforum.

All Ive seen him do is post pointless threads about his stupid idea of a moneyless society. I say we ban him unless he contributes to the physics forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not true. The divide between rich and poor has gotten larger under Obama, as reflected by a stagnant economy, yet large corporate profits, especially in the stock market. The rich are happy with Obama. Only the middle class is getting the squeeze. Instead of listening to rhetoric, look at the output data.

The Democratic party preaches higher taxes rates for the rich, but they don't tell you that deductions is how businesses get all this money back. The year Obama was re-elected GE (General Electric) who supported Obama, paid no taxes, even though they had the same tax rate as all the rest of the businesses. It is called deductions and exemptions in exchange for support. This is how power and money dance. The rate only works for the small guy/gal who does not have access to enough deductions.

The Democratic party is also the king of the police problem, as reflected by using the IRS and the NSA to spy on and leverage its citizens beyond anything ever done before. But beyond that, there is a saying that sin is not imputed without a law. Once you make a law, you also create a new sin/violation and the need for more police. The Democrats are the king of laws and regulations expanding the police state.

For example, if we made a silly law like anyone wearing black shoes on odds days is in violation, I could create a whole new criminal class and now need more police. If we got rid of this silly law, one year later, like magic we lose all those criminals and the need for extra police. Behind this push for more laws=criminals are defense lawyers, which collectively back the Democrats. More law means more criminals which means more business for defense lawyers. The black shoe on odds day law would give more jobs to lawyers defending the new criminal class from the over reach of an expanding police state.

 

Let me do the math again in terms of law, criminals and police. Say we had 100 police officers deterring and enforcing an existing set of laws. There is a steady state between crime and punishment. Say we add more laws to the books and thereby create new criminals. Sin becomes imputed when there is new law making criminals proportional to laws.

If this same police force had to deter and enforce the extra law they would be overworked. So we need to expand the police. The Democrats want more criminals and a police state since they make the most laws and regulations. There is no law that makes fewer criminals and requires fewer police. Don't listen to rhetoric, be a scientist and do the math.

 

Its true, thats why I think all victimless crimes should be made legal

 

The term victimless crime is an oxymoron, since the real victims are the ones called the criminals. For example, say I decided it was illegal to have your hair more than 2 inches long. This is a victimless crime since longer hair does not rape, steal, assault or kill. If does impact anyone in an objective way; is all in their imaginations.

In spite of being irrational, this law just created a new criminal class that did not exist before. Once it is accepted, it also allows those who conform to the subjective law to make the subjective law breakers their subjective scape goat. In a rational world, the victims are called the criminals and the criminals will be called law abiding.

Maybe we need science to use the scientific method to police the law.

 

I always smile when I see references to "victimless crime". In most cases it is highly arguable that such crimes do in fact have victims, even if the victims are indirect, for example taxpayers that have to foot the bills run up by people due to their own stupidity or mendacity.

So I take some persuading that there really are such things: I think they are a bit of a myth. But perhaps you could give examples of the sort of thing you have in mind.

 

Drug use and nonviolent drug dealing
Prositution
Gambling
The numerous victimless gun laws
Alcohol and drinking age laws
Minor traffic violations (seatbelt/helmet laws)
Drunk driving laws? (Questionable)

I'm sure there other examples

 

Thanks. I think some of these come into the category I've been mentioning. Things such as seat belt and helmet laws protect society from excessive bills for medical treatment. Drunk driving unquestionably kills and injures the innocent so not remotely victimless. Drinking age laws are admittedly a bit odd in the USA. But below a certain age there is no doubt the body and mind can't handle alcohol, so people need protecting from it.

I tend to agree that with drugs, the cost to society would be far less if we treated the addiction rather than dealing with the huge criminal industry that has arisen as a result of prohibition, but this is a pragmatic argument. It is not victimless. I'm surprised prostitution appears on you list. I thought in most places this was not illegal per se, it was only the accosting of people by prostitutes that was - which is a bit of a nuisance, as anyone who has walked down the the Reeperbahn in Hamburg after 10 p.m can attest.

 

There is an argument that bicycle helmet laws have actually raised health costs, because they discourage people from cycling, resulting in a reduction of exercise, resulting in an increase in a number of diseases.

 

That sounds like contorted ballocks to me, I must say.

 

It's not bollocks that the argument exists.
But yes, the argument could be bollocks, though it's hardly contorted.
How would you test it?

 

It's highly contorted. It depends on a long and implausible chain of causality that will be extremely hard, if not impossible, to verify. It would be up to the person advancing the hypothesis, rather than me, to provide evidence for it. I await the evidence with scepticism.

 

There's another argument (which I think has more validity) that mandatory bicycling helmets result in people surviving more crashes, albeit in pretty bad shape - and living people require more health care than dead people.

 

Mandatory helmets -> reduced cycling
Reduced cycling -> reduced overall exercise
Reduced overall exercise -> Greater incidence of cardiovascular disease

Three steps in the chain. It's not long. It's not contorted.
Which step or steps are implausible?
I agree that it would be hard to verify or refute experimentally.

 

Wearing a helmet doesn't just change fatality to severe injury, it also changes severe injury to minor injury. So without helmets, you still get people surviving in pretty bad shape, requiring thousands of dollars in treatment and rehab.

A very quick literature search (ie the first two articles I found) indicates that more unhelmeted cyclist injuries involve severe head injury and high cost (AU$10k +) treatment than helmeted cyclist injuries.

This is the first relevant journal article (actually a letter to the editor)I found on a search for "cyclists injuries".

This letter to the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia: The effectiveness of helmets in reducing head injuries and hospital treatment costs: a multicentre study summarises trauma patients admitted to seven Sydney hospitals between July 2008 and June 2009 where the patient was a motorcyclist or pedal cyclist on a public road and aged 15 years or more.

There were 398 cases. Helmet information was missing for 50.
Of the remainder, 110 were pedal cyclists. 70 were recorded as wearing helmets at the time of the incident, 40 were recorded as being helmetless.

The overall injury severity, incidence of multiregion injury, and incidence of Intensive Care admissions look similar between the two groups. (p=1, 0.46, and 0.81 respectively).

There were significant differences with head injuries and rehab between the groups, and maybe with post hospital rehab admissions.
All head injuries: 39% (27 of 70) helmeted, 75% (30 of 40) helmetless (p<0.001)
Severe head injuries: 9% (6 of 70) helmeted, 23% (9 of 40) helmetless (p=0.04)
Rehabilitation: 4% (3 of 70) helmeted, 15% (6 of 40) helmetless (p=0.07)

Costing results are interesting, but tantalisingly incomplete. (all values in AU$)
Median cost was higher for helmeted pedal cyclists, $6500 compared to $5600
The top quartile was higher for helmetless pedal cyclists, $15200 against $10700

But, the article does not give mean costs, and while it describes the median and interquartile ranges for all severe head injuries ($15k-$60k helmeted, $33k-$140k helmetless), it doesn't break this down between pedal cyclists and motor cyclists.

I also note the article doesn't report on incidents that do not result in hospital admissions, such as fatalities before admission, those treated and discharged from ED, and those who never went to hospital at all.


I've only skimmed the other article I found, an editorial published in the latest MJA: Head injury prevention for bicyclists — helmets make a difference