From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: To tattle, or not to tattle
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:11:17 GMT

vbreault@rinhp750.gmr.com (Val Breault) writes:
: 
:    I believe it was for the same reason that criminals prefer to do their
:    work in secret.  The certainty of detection and prosecution is the 
:    single greatest deterrent to crime.  

Nope - the greateste deterrent is removing the profit from the crime.

:    I believe that people ought to be rewarded for disclosing criminal 
:    acts, whether those seen with their eyes or heard with their ears.
: 
: I knew when I wrote this that I would take heat for it.  My faith
: in my fellow man is not diminished.  :-)  :-) 

With the attitude you display, I am surprised you didn't get worse.

: Some people feel that if a law is not a "good" law (in their mind)
: then it does not need to be obeyed.  I guess that's why some folks 
: drive faster than the speed limits. 

If it is safe, why not. I don't, because I seldom feel it would be
safe.

: I'm not at all egotistical.  I'm sure that no one is going to change
: their way of life just because Val said something.  However, I'd like
: to ask "Where do we draw the line?" and "What's the best way to handle
: 'bad' laws?"

The best way is to get rid of them. They only way to get rid of them is
for so many people to ignore them that they cannot be enforced. You can
bet that the politicians will not remove them willingly.

: I believe that, for the most part, the laws that are on the books 
: were put there by rational people seeking to keep things civilized.

Nope. Most of the laws on the books are designed to give special priviledges
to a select group or groups. Very few of the laws are necessary.

: They may not seem to apply to everyone, they may seem to be quite
: outdated, but unless there is a specific exception, they apply to all.  

See above.

: If enough people feel that a law is "bad" then they OUGHT to pressure
: their representatives to delete the law and make things better for 
: us all.  That's the way it's supposed to work anyhow.....

Yes, it is supposed to work that way - unfortunately, it doesn't.

: Here's an idea that I've been voicing lately:
: 
: We have several thousands of people whose full time job is to create
: new laws.  Now if these people are at all mindful of their roles then
: we will have (and DO have) a rushing torrent of new legislation that
: pours out of the halls of congress continuously.  Every new law removes
: someones liberties at least a little bit.  Now how about this.... We
: change the charter of congress just a little bit.  We require that if
: a congressman wants to enact a new law that (s)he first select two old
: laws for deletion.  Then they vote on the package.  At first it'll be
: a simple task to find and delete the "dumb" laws like the ones that
: prohibit taking your horse into a store.  After a few years though, 
: they'll have to look a lot more closely.  Maybe (just maybe) we can
: get rid of the glut of "bad" laws and end up with just "the golden rule".
: (Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said "The government that governs least
: governs best"?)

More than a few years. Maybe, in fifty years or so, they would have to
start looking a bit for dumb or unnecessary laws.

: If someone was SURE that he would be discovered in a crime, it would 
: be a TERRIFIC deterrant.  I believe that's why drug dealers don't 
: approach uniformed cops.  I believe that's why rapists use the cover
: of darkness.  I believe that's why speeders use radar detectors.  
: (Yes, I realize that it's unfair to group them together, but it looked 
: humorous)

Nope. The drug dealers realize that arrest and possible jail/prison time
are a part of selling their wares. That is part of the reason for their
high price - to compensate them for this hazard. So, it would act as a 
deterrant only for those who had a strong fear of prison.

Most rapes are performed by acquaintances/relatives of the victim. They
do not care too much about the victim knowing who they are. The reason
the non-acquantance rapes tend to occur at night is - that is when there
are fewer people on the street who might interfere. If there were few
people around in the daytime, and many at night, then the rapes would
occur during the daytime.

I saw some statistics somewhere which reported that only about 10% of
speeders use radar detectors.

: Every time a criminal (I'll let you use your own definition of
: criminal) gets away with something it reenforces the belief that
: he won't get caught or that he can get away with something worse
: the next time.  It's simply human nature.

What does that have to do with the discussion about whether it is right
to turn the person in, or not?

: If the criminals knew that someone would be listening and would be
: rewarded for turning them in then I'm pretty sure that it would at
: least deter them from using cell or cordless phones.

Possibly. Or, they might just have their friends find out who has scanners
and have them trash/burn the houses if they get caught.

: If congress and the police knew that they could count on scanner
: enthusiasts to help maintain the peace then the scanner enthusiasts
: would be viewed as valuable contributors to the neighborhoods, not
: the renegade snoopers as they are now.  Their rights would be promoted,
: not restricted.  If the scanner enthusiasts keep the information
: only among themselves then they will be seen as having NO redeeming
: qualities whatsoever and their rights will be eroded.

No way. The main reason congress-slime passed the bill in the first place
was because they do not want the general population overhearing the dubious
things the congress is up to. There is no way that the congress cares about
the general population - all they care about is themselves. Of course, there
may be a few exceptions - but they are rare.

Bill