Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cuz nothing goes wrong when we privatize normally public services. Observe the "kids for cash" scandal in PA when they privatized the juvenile detention centers:
A former juvenile court judge in Pennsylvania could face more than 10 years in prison after being convicted in what prosecutors called a "kids for cash" scheme.
Prosecutors say former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella used children as pawns, locking them up unjustly in a plot to get rich. Ciavarella is accused of taking nearly $1 million in kickbacks from owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes. Ciavarella claims that the payment he received from a developer of the PA Child Care facility was legal and denies that he ever incarcerated kids for money.
I don't think we can trust any Govt Service going private , bad things seem to happen.
It can't be any worse than the corruption and inefficiency in government, especially in NJ. And you can always change to a different private company if you're dissatisfied with their service, but there's only one government and police force. As a previous post showed, the "protection" provided by the public police is practically zero. And corruption is the norm.
"Just as predictable as new, outrageous cases of abuse or the failure to punish or prosecute officers who commit human rights violations are the commissions created to investigate problems of abuse. In 1981, for example, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published an important report on police abuse, titled Who is Guarding the Guardians?54 The commission held hearings, subpoenaed documents, and worked with experts in preparing its study. The report contains dozens of recommendations dealing with recruitment of new police officers, internal review of misconduct allegations, external review of abuse complaints, and compilation and dissemination of nationwide data regarding police abuse.
Seventeen years later, most of the recommendations made by the commission remain unrealized. All of the police departments examined by Human Rights Watch had flawed complaint systems and provided inadequate information to the public about how to file a complaint. Multilingual complaint forms, status notification to complainants, and proper maintenance and use of data relating to those complaints are still lacking. The Civil Rights Commission had recommended adequate internal affairs systems, meaningful external review mechanisms, and effective early warning systems for officers with repeated abuse complaints. None of the cities we examined has all of these mechanisms in place. The commission had noted, as well, that one major barrier to federal prosecution of police officers who commit human rights violations is the "specific intent" standard: prosecutors must prove that an officer specifically intended to deprive an individual of a constitutional right in order to win brutality cases. Yet in the seventeen years since the commission's report, neither Congress nor the Executive Branch of the federal government has actively pursued a revision of the statute.
Since the Civil Rights Commission report in 1981, a handful of comprehensive studies on police misconduct in particular cities have been published: in Los Angeles (Christopher Commission), Boston (St. Clair Commission), and New York (Mollen Commission).55 Investigators have held hearings, reviewed relevant police files, and produced piercing critiques of the police departments' shortcomings. In Boston, the scope of the report was limited, and many of the recommended reforms were long overdue and have been implemented. In New York and Los Angeles,implementation is still underway, with mixed results. In general, reports from special commissions or human rights groups receive serious attention initially, but that attention fades until new incidents remind citizens that reforms were not implemented as promised.
All of the commissions' studies revealed disturbing common threads. In addition to racial components and seriously flawed internal affairs units, described more fully below, the commissions emphasized that police departments tolerate abuse. The Mollen Commission stated: "As important as the possible extent of brutality, is the extent of brutality tolerance we found throughout the Department....[O]fficers seem fairly tolerant - both outwardly and inwardly - of occasional police brutality."56 The commission went on: "This tolerance, or willful blindness, extends to supervisors as well....[W]hen cops come to the stationhouse with a visibly beaten suspect...[supervisors] often do not question the story they hear."57
Serious failures on the part of high-ranking police officials were also noted. The Christopher Commission report found, for example: "[T]he failure to control these [repeatedly abusive] officers is a management issue that is at the heart of the problem. The documents and data that we have analyzed have all been available to the department; indeed, most of this information came from that source. The LAPD's failure to analyze and act upon these revealing data evidences a significant breakdown in the management and leadership of the Department."58 Similarly, the St. Clair Commission found "substantial problems in the leadership and management of the [Boston] Department...."59 Hubert Williams, the president of the Police Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based research group, stated: "Most police chiefs are honest and have integrity, but they fail due to an ignorance of what is occurring in their own departments."60 Williams noted a "disconnect between policies and practices" within police departments.61
The Mollen Commission also described the important link between corruption and brutality, with brutality against citizens serving as a sort of "rite of passage" toward corruption. Some officers told the commission that brutality was how they first "crossed the line toward abandoning their integrity," and when the line was crossed without consequences, it was easier to abuse their authority in other ways.62 According to the commission, "....we found that cops did not simply become corrupt; they sometimes became corrupt and violent."63 In some cities, newer officers - who are most likely to be "tested" by corrupt fellow officers - are assigned to poor and minority neighborhoods. The victims in these brutality "rites of passage" would most commonly be minorities."
Civil Rights is a bipartisan, independent agency to investigate civil rights complaints and to collect and disseminate information.
54 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "Who is Guarding the Guardians?" (Washington D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, October 1981). In 1957, Congress established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as a bipartisan, independent agency to investigate civil rights complaints and to collect and disseminate information.
55 Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department, July 7, 1994 (hereinafter Mollen Commission report).
56 Mollen Commission report, p. 49.
57 Ibid.
58 Christopher Commission report, p. iv.
59 St. Clair Commission report, p. i.
60 U.S. Department of Justice, Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice), January 1997, p. 33.
A fairly large number. For example, I can get a ticket if I forget to buckle my car seat belt. Now I think it's a good idea to put your seat belt on and almost always do, but it's an infringement on my freedom if I'm forced to and can get fined if I don't. Another, I happen to do some target shooting. I had to pay about $100 to get a firearms ID; when I moved, I again had to pay $100 and go through the process since apparently it goes by city. Another, the city charged me $100 to get a "certificate of occupancy" when I sold my house. To get this, a guy just came over and checked that the smoke alarms were working. The town also charged the realtor $100 just for putting a "For Sale" sign on my property. Another, the city sent me a letter saying the grass was too long in my BACK yard, and I'd have to cut it or get fined. Another, I have to pay a huge property tax bill for services I don't even want or get. In the 3 or 4 times I was the victim of a crime, the police were no help at all, and in fact data show that only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police have no effect on the crime rate. I could extend the list at some length, but the message is obvious.
Seatbelt thing, you seem to like this one. Every state with the exception of New Hampshire has a seatbelt law on the books.
The firearms thing, I'm guessing you purchased a second gun, hence needing a second permit. Rifles and shotguns are all covered under the single firearms purchaser ID, but handguns each require a separate application.
The CO is a town based thing and varies nationwide in its use. It is there to ensure that a property is up to standard for habitability and that nothing has been done in terms of modifications without a permit.
The "For Sale" sign thing is also a town based law, some have it, some don't.
Your grass is also a town based thing, some towns enforce that, others don't.
LOL, on paying for services you don't use. Fine, the police didn't help you so we'll leave that one alone. How about the fire department? How about roads, sidewalks, parks, and various other infrastructure? How about snow plows? How about schools? Do you use none of the services provided by your town with your tax dollars? Chances are those services exist everywhere and need to be paid for.
Most of the things you are complaining about our local issues and those laws/rules vary greatly from town to town. As I said earlier, the denser the population the more those rules come into play. So, outside of seatbelts and needing to apply for each handgun you buy, what has the STATE of NJ done to strip away your rights.
As far as I can tell the only thing you can do in NH (freest state) that you can't do in NJ is drive your motorcycle while not wearing a helmet, while talking on a cell phone and carrying a gun (with permit of course) on your way to a restaurant where you can smoke a few packs of tax free cigarettes at dinner. If that appels to you, than you need to move to experience it.
We don't have to have "mob rule." The first police departments weren't formed in the U.S. until the 1840s, and there was little public policing until the 20th century. Crime was no higher then. We could either reform the system drastically or go to a privatized system. A private protection agency would have to be efficient or go out of business.
Are you seriously comparing the America of the 1840's where a population a scant over 17 million was largely living in rural areas to modern America with a population pushing 300 million with most people living in dense urban areas.
Like I said, law, order, structure, policing, government, etc. is all a direct result of population size, but particularly density. The history of policing in America goes hand in hand with the growing trend of urbanization and growing populations.
As for "crime being no higher then", the reality was that crime was a lot lower. This is not because there weren't police, but because there was a smaller less dense population. It wasn't until 1960 that crime rates began to sky rocket, a trend that didn't end until it peaked in the early 1990's when crime rates began to drop across the board and they have continued to drop since then.
Wonder about a relationship between the highest crime rates and least freedom as every criminal act results in a new law to soothe emotions and gain political credentials for whatever cause.
Maybe the states with the most lawyers/politicians have the least freedoms? Lawsuits result in modified business and personal practices as well as feel good legislation,most of which is designed to provide a defense in case of a law suit.
A state senator back by the trial lawyers assoc of course has no bearing on loss of freedom by legislation.
Police especially in places like Newark tend to write tickets as fundraisers while the towns around them burn. Misdirected use of the police and wacky judges who subjectively pursue obscure laws to raise money, justified in the name of safety, often run court rooms as bait dangled before a 'fish' as a place to seek justice. The naive citizen, who doesn't stand a chance, gets charged 'court costs' in a predetermined finding of guilty.
Apple trees drop fruit on the grass, cut it down or else a person will trip and bring suit. Fear of lawyers generates the greatest loss of freedom with criminal acts a close 2nd.
Seatbelt thing, you seem to like this one. Every state with the exception of New Hampshire has a seatbelt law on the books.
The firearms thing, I'm guessing you purchased a second gun, hence needing a second permit. Rifles and shotguns are all covered under the single firearms purchaser ID, but handguns each require a separate application.
The fact that most states have seatbelt laws doesn't make it right.
No, I didn't purchase a second gun. When I moved, I had to apply for a firearms ID again (which envolved paying about $100 and getting two people to sign and vouch for you). The same thing happened to my brother when he moved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The CO is a town based thing and varies nationwide in its use. It is there to ensure that a property is up to standard for habitability and that nothing has been done in terms of modifications without a permit.
You have a home inspector go over the property when you buy. The guy who approved the CO checked the fire alarms and little else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The "For Sale" sign thing is also a town based law, some have it, some don't.
Your grass is also a town based thing, some towns enforce that, others don't.
Towns in NJ seem a lot more likely to have such laws than other states I lived in. Part of it is having to raise revenues to pay for all the state-mandated programs (and the corruption in government).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
LOL, on paying for services you don't use. Fine, the police didn't help you so we'll leave that one alone. How about the fire department? How about roads, sidewalks, parks, and various other infrastructure? How about snow plows? How about schools? Do you use none of the services provided by your town with your tax dollars? Chances are those services exist everywhere and need to be paid for.
Actually I don't use most of them, but their cost is much higher because of the inefficiency and corruption in government. But that's changing the point. The fact that you use a service doesn't justify having laws that infringe on your rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Most of the things you are complaining about our local issues and those laws/rules vary greatly from town to town. As I said earlier, the denser the population the more those rules come into play. So, outside of seatbelts and needing to apply for each handgun you buy, what has the STATE of NJ done to strip away your rights.
As far as I can tell the only thing you can do in NH (freest state) that you can't do in NJ is drive your motorcycle while not wearing a helmet, while talking on a cell phone and carrying a gun (with permit of course) on your way to a restaurant where you can smoke a few packs of tax free cigarettes at dinner. If that appels to you, than you need to move to experience it.
That leaves out one of the biggest differences: NJ has the highest tax rate in the nation. New Hampshire, for example, has no state income tax or sales tax. The fact that I have to pay such a large percentage of my income to the government severely restricts my freedom to do other things.
Wonder about a relationship between the highest crime rates and least freedom as every criminal act results in a new law to soothe emotions and gain political credentials for whatever cause.
Maybe the states with the most lawyers/politicians have the least freedoms? Lawsuits result in modified business and personal practices as well as feel good legislation,most of which is designed to provide a defense in case of a law suit.
A state senator back by the trial lawyers assoc of course has no bearing on loss of freedom by legislation.
Police especially in places like Newark tend to write tickets as fundraisers while the towns around them burn. Misdirected use of the police and wacky judges who subjectively pursue obscure laws to raise money, justified in the name of safety, often run court rooms as bait dangled before a 'fish' as a place to seek justice. The naive citizen, who doesn't stand a chance, gets charged 'court costs' in a predetermined finding of guilty.
Apple trees drop fruit on the grass, cut it down or else a person will trip and bring suit. Fear of lawyers generates the greatest loss of freedom with criminal acts a close 2nd.
This is right on the money. Tragic thing happens...parent or whoever says "there should have been a law against (fill in the blank)" sues everyone...law gets passed restricting freedom lest another law suit get filed down the road.
This reactionary approach to law making is not restricted to states...look at the FAA, and the restrictions on flying. People EXPECT the government to keep them safe from every possible thing that can go wrong now, and there's plenty of blame and political fallout when something happens, and lawmakers are responding to that.
The fact that most states have seatbelt laws doesn't make it right.
Perhaps not, but it is a law that has no down side. Listen, I have a degree in Political Science, I understand the "issue" about overreaching government and erosion of liberties. I'm also not exactly someone most would paint as a liberal, but annyoance laws like seatbelts have no downside. You can derive a societal benefit to them. Lower death and injury rates from accidents do have a direct impact on collective insurance rates.
Quote:
No, I didn't purchase a second gun. When I moved, I had to apply for a firearms ID again (which envolved paying about $100 and getting two people to sign and vouch for you). The same thing happened to my brother when he moved.
Well, you got screwed or messed something up. As long as you have the original card and you moved, all you need to do is fill out the following form which serves as a change of address:
Per the Hopewell Twp. PD as long as you fill out the required forms, no more is needed than $20 ($2 for the permit itself and $18 for the one application, you do not need to be fingerprinted again:
You have a home inspector go over the property when you buy. The guy who approved the CO checked the fire alarms and little else.
This is a town based thing. Some inspection are far more in depth. If the town has basic code requirements and your house looked normal than they don't have an issue. CO requirements are also a good backcheck for rental properties.
Quote:
Towns in NJ seem a lot more likely to have such laws than other states I lived in. Part of it is having to raise revenues to pay for all the state-mandated programs (and the corruption in government).
Actually I don't use most of them, but their cost is much higher because of the inefficiency and corruption in government. But that's changing the point. The fact that you use a service doesn't justify having laws that infringe on your rights.
Well, what are you complaining about, wasteful, ineffectual, corrupted government or the infringement on your rights? They are not mutual things and one can exist without the other. The only reason that I am pushing this point is that so many people harp on a "lack of liberty" or "infringement on their rights" without really being able to give a clear cut example of what that is.
Quote:
That leaves out one of the biggest differences: NJ has the highest tax rate in the nation. New Hampshire, for example, has no state income tax or sales tax. The fact that I have to pay such a large percentage of my income to the government severely restricts my freedom to do other things.
Well, New Hampshire is a much smaller state than NJ and while there is no direct income or universal sales tax, they do have taxes. All meals, hotel rooms, campsites and rental cars in NH are charged a 9% tax, that is essentially a limited sales tax. They don't collect an income tax on your W2 wages, but they do collect on capital/dividend gains as well as gambling winnings. They also have a state 6.5% state utility tax based on assessed home value that pays for infrastructure. They also assess a direct state property tax that funds education in addition to whatever the local property taxes are. They are also a liquor control state and raise a large portion of their revenue through controlling liquor sales.
Based on average incomes and state/local tax burdens people in NJ pay about 10.4% and rank near the top in terms of tax burden. People in NH pay around 7.4% and rank near the bottom. That's the difference, 3%.
Foremost, they are a state of 1/6th the population of NJ, 1/10th the density and a little over 1/10th of our economy. They also don't have any major urban centers with their largest city Manchester barely having more residents than some NJ suburbs like Cherry Hill.
It's all about context. If you want lower taxes and more "freedom" move to a state with a small, low density population. NJ's "situation" is a direct result of being one of the most diverse and densely populated states in the country in addition to being a major economic center.
Perhaps not, but it is a law that has no down side.
Really? I consider being stopped by the police for not wearing my seat belt to be a "down side". I consider the loss of freedom in the first place to be a "down side". You can claim otherwise, but then you're not refuting the idea that NJ has less freedom than elsewhere; you're just arguing against freedom.
Quote:
Lower death and injury rates from accidents do have a direct impact on collective insurance rates.
Utilitarianism isn't everything.
Quote:
Well, what are you complaining about, wasteful, ineffectual, corrupted government or the infringement on your rights? They are not mutual things and one can exist without the other. The only reason that I am pushing this point is that so many people harp on a "lack of liberty" or "infringement on their rights" without really being able to give a clear cut example of what that is.
Corruption and lack of liberty are well-correlated; the more things the state can do, the more opportunities for state actors to extract a cut in exchange for doing (or not doing) them.
The non-government people here should be behind dismantling the military fully in favor of private corporate-owned militias. After all, private industry is always better than what the government provides.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
