The Crime Funnel

[DC_DEEP]

I have to agree with the skeptics on this one. I don't trust those statistics.

HazelGod, you and I have very similar views of the nanny state. It could possibly cleanse the gene pool a bit if the government stopped "protecting people from themselves."

Meg, you would be surprised what is considered misdemeanor and felony in Kansas, regarding cannabis. Possession of ANY amount is a misdemeanor for first offense, and can be a felony for subsequent offenses; sale or cultivation of ANY amount is a felony (interesting that if you purchase even a milligram of pot from someone, he commits a felony, and you commit a misdemeanor for possessing it). I suppose that, under Kansas law, you would be felony-liable if someone casually tossed a seed in your front yard and it sprouted.

I read an article years ago that had some startling facts about prison overcrowding, what percentage of incarcerations were for simple possession charges, and some disparate averages for prison terms for violent and non-violent felonies (in some jurisdictions, a convicted rapist was more likely to get paroled or serve less time than a guy jailed for possession over an ounce...)

If I know of a crime against a person, I'm likely to report it (theft, assault, rape, etc) but if I see some guy with a pot plant in his back yard, I'm likely to contact him and let him know that it's too easy to see it from the street... hide it a little better!

 

[dong20]

Take seat belt laws: It's a fucking case study in nanny government. Not only are the police actively patrolling for people not wearing them, but the state (at least mine) has actually spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a stupid-ass advertising campaign to tell people that they're doing so. For what?!? If you're a grown adult too stupid to grok that buckling up increases your survival odds, then why is it the state's job to make sure that you do? And why should the taxpayers foot the bill for such?

Yes, and no.

Yes, in that it's catering to idiots at taxpayer expense. No, in that it's possibly cheaper per head to run ad campaigns and impose fines than pay increased insurance premiums (or income tax, depending on health service model) that result from the costs of glueing said (stupid) people back together after they fly out the windows, possibly from driving too fast while drunk (two other areas of taxpayer funded stupidity avoidance and penalty enforcement).

There was a BMJ cost/benefit analysis of a seat belt enforcement programme undertaken in South Africa (with reference to the US). It's available here but you may need to register. The key findings were:

"

• The costs of a one year enhanced seatbelt enforcement program in eThekwini would be modest at around US$300 000.
  
• Such a programme would be highly beneficial in terms of saved lives and injuries and is estimated to result in a net present value of $1.7 million.
  
• The programme would recover its financial costs to the Municipality through revenue from fines.
  
• Even if the programme ended after one year there would be ongoing benefits because, even though seatbelt wearing rates would fall, they would stabilize at a rate greater than before the programme."

Of course, SA has terrible road fatality rates (for a range of reasons) but it also has lower medical costs. I'm not trying to draw direct comparisons, merely to suggest it's not necessarily quite as simple as advocating stupid people should be left to get what's coming to them, because it may (appear to) save me a buck when it may actually cost me two.

In the end, some people are simply too stupid to work some things out for themselves. It's a drag but I don't think that justifies leaving them to a greatly elevated risk of hideous disfigurement, permanent disability or death simply because of that.

There's also a school of thought that seatbelt wearing is putting people at more risk and increasing road traffic deaths by tacitly promoting careless driving, as if it needed any promotion.

John Adams: Risk in a Hypermobile World » Blog Archive » Seat belt legislation and the Isles Report
The Hidden Danger of Seat Belts - TIME

I understand the logic but I'm not convinced.Sure, if we drove round in papiermache cars with steel spikes on the steering wheels we may drive slower and better, but we don't, and people will take risks regardless, I'll take the statistical 'risk' wearing a belt against not because I don't know what the other guy is thinking and because numbers are only part of the equation.

All I can say is that if a passenger in my car won't buckle up, they get out and walk, or find another ride. My position has (almost) nothing to do with legal compliance.

PS On why people don't always report crime, I'd suggest a lot is due to the fact they think it's a waste of time. A self fulfilling strategy to be sure, but I know I've done so.