NJ Ranks #49 in overall freedom! Good job! (Newark, Washington: rental car, sales)

[HeatherLynn822]

Originally Posted by NJBest

I agree with you 100%. They should scrap the laws requiring seatbelt usage. They should also allow hospitals to require upfront payment for treating individuals who were injured in a car accident where they were not using their seatbelts.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by ann_lepore

As the old saying goes, my freedom ends where another person;s freedom begins. New Jersey goes way beyond that; it has all sorts of laws restricting personal freedoms that do not in themselves infringe on other people, like the seatbelt law and the laws making it very difficult to own a gun. Note that the important point is "infringe." Anything we do may *affect* others. If we go be that criterion, the government can pass any law it wants, no matter how much it infringes on our personal freedoms.

On a day-to-day basis how many of NJ's laws infringe on you? I'm not talking in the Political Science hypothetical realm of slippery slope, I'm talking in down to Earth reality. My guess is you wouldn't feel any more free in number 1 ranked New Hampshire than you would in New Jersey on a day-to-day basis.

According to the Mercatus article, the things that make NJ so bad is our taxes and poor state fiscal policy as well as the fact we require people to wear helmets and use seatbelts. We use sobriety checkpoints, ban cell phones while driving, have "oppressively" high cigarette taxes and require people to carry uninsured motorist coverage. We manage our land through "Smart Growth" policies and have strict laws regarding professional licensing. We also do bad in labor laws with mandatory paid family leave.

They suggest the following to make us "freer":

1. Reform asset forfeiture by placing the burden of proof on the government and redirecting revenues from law enforcement.
2. Cut state funding to local school districts and use the savings to cut income, property, and cigarette taxes.
3. Repeal occupational licenses, such as those for contractors, claims adjusters, urban planners, rehabilitation counselors, librarians, and court reporters.

Number one is amusingly one of the few issues they take with number one NH as well. Basically the police shouldn't be allowed to seize the assets of criminals without more proof.

Number two, well they obviously understand NJ really well to suggest that. Drop all state school funding (would require changing the constitution) to cut income, property and cigarette taxes. However, they fail to realize the property taxes are local, not state based and if we cut all state funding to schools they would most certainly go up.

Number three sounds like a real winner too. Let's not license all of those professionals and ensure they are actually capable of performing the job and have the necessary skills and insurance.

[Unknown Memory]

Originally Posted by bradykp

if you're breaking the law and have an out of state plate anywhere in the country, you're an easy target, because they know you won't fight it.

Right. But if you're not breaking the law and they still want to check you out, then what?

Although, when I think of it, my mother was probably driving a little wobbly, which might be why the cop thought something was funny... Oh well. (<_< She has a few tendencies to get easily distracted by pretty scenaries.)

[ann_lepore]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

On a day-to-day basis how many of NJ's laws infringe on you? I'm not talking in the Political Science hypothetical realm of slippery slope, I'm talking in down to Earth reality. My guess is you wouldn't feel any more free in number 1 ranked New Hampshire than you would in New Jersey on a day-to-day basis.....

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.

[fred44]

Originally Posted by ann_lepore

... and in fact data show that only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police have no effect on the crime rate.

Um, no. More like 12% for motor vehicle thefts ranging to 65% for murder. But in your defense, according to this data, it does seem like cops could care less about property crimes. Note to self, lock doors and don't leave keys in the car.

Table 25 - Crime in the United States 2009

[ann_lepore]

Originally Posted by fred44

Um, no. More like 12% for motor vehicle thefts ranging to 65% for murder. But in your defense, according to this data, it does seem like cops could care less about property crimes. Note to self, lock doors and don't leave keys in the car.

Table 25 - Crime in the United States 2009

1. That table shows the clearance rate--"Percent of Offenses Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means"
2. The clearance rate is reported by the police themselves; that's like having a student grade his own test; and in fact many departments have been found to be exaggerating their clearance rate.
3. Less than half of all arrests result in a conviction

In only about 1% of crimes overall and 2% of violent crimes is someone caught and convicted for the crime.


"...ultimately, only about 2 percent of violent crimes result in a conviction."
--"Tougher Laws Will Not Prevent Crime. "Malcolm C Young, Marc Mauer, In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998

Less than half (about 42%) of all murders are ever solved, and that's using DoJ/FBI figures for clearance, percentage prosecuted, and percentage convicted and assuming NO unreported or unknown murders (see, eg, _Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice_, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor. Macmillan 2002).
In one study, in only 11% of reported cases of sexual assault was someone caught and convicted (Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL: The prosecution of sexual assault cases: Correlation with forensic evidence. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 39:39-46.)

And over half of all crimes are never even reported..
The Department of Justice's own data on victimization (e.g., for 2004 Table 91) Criminal Victimization in the United States--Percent distribution of victimizations, by type of crime and whether or not reported to the police http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0491.pdf (broken link)) found that about 57.5% of crimes overall, and nearly 50% of all violent crimes are never reported.
In _Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice_ by Charles Silberman, Random House, New York (p76), it states: "Census Bureau surveys of crime victims indicate that only about half of all robberies, less than half of all burglaries, and about one-fourth of all larcenies are reported to the police."
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

In my own experience, when my car, my brother's car, my sister-in-law's car, and 3 or 4 friends and relatives cars were stolen, the police did not solve the crime.

[EBWick]

Originally Posted by ann_lepore

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.

Describe the services you "don't want or get." I guarantee there are plenty of them that you need.

We should scrap police depts. and go back to mob rule and community policing. You have a very progressive approach to crime fighting.

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by ann_lepore

In my own experience, when my car, my brother's car, my sister-in-law's car, and 3 or 4 friends and relatives cars were stolen, the police did not solve the crime.

It's not that it's much of a mystery. They know where the stolen cars are going, they just don't bother to do anything about it because handing out traffic tickets is safer and more lucrative and doesn't involve any cross-jurisdictional troubles.

[ann_lepore]

Originally Posted by EBWick

Describe the services you "don't want or get." I guarantee there are plenty of them that you need.

We should scrap police depts. and go back to mob rule and community policing. You have a very progressive approach to crime fighting.

I did in a previous post. I also cited studies that showed the police are practically useless. They solve only about 1% to 2% of crimes and have no significant effect on the crime rate.

1. That table [of a previous poster] shows the clearance rate--"Percent of Offenses Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means"
2. The clearance rate is reported by the police themselves; that's like having a student grade his own test; and in fact many departments have been found to be exaggerating their clearance rate.
3. Less than half of all arrests result in a conviction

In only about 1% of crimes overall and 2% of violent crimes is someone caught and convicted for the crime.

"...ultimately, only about 2 percent of violent crimes result in a conviction."
--"Tougher Laws Will Not Prevent Crime. "Malcolm C Young, Marc Mauer, In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998

Less than half (about 42%) of all murders are ever solved, and that's using DoJ/FBI figures for clearance, percentage prosecuted, and percentage convicted and assuming NO unreported or unknown murders (see, eg, _Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice_, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor. Macmillan 2002).
In one study, in only 11% of reported cases of sexual assault was someone caught and convicted (Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL: The prosecution of sexual assault cases: Correlation with forensic evidence. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 39:39-46.)

And over half of all crimes are never even reported..
The Department of Justice's own data on victimization (e.g., for 2004 Table 91) Criminal Victimization in the United States--Percent distribution of victimizations, by type of crime and whether or not reported to the police http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf...ent/cv0491.pdf (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0491.pdf - broken link)) found that about 57.5% of crimes overall, and nearly 50% of all violent crimes are never reported.
In _Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice_ by Charles Silberman, Random House, New York (p76), it states: "Census Bureau surveys of crime victims indicate that only about half of all robberies, less than half of all burglaries, and about one-fourth of all larcenies are reported to the police."
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

In my own experience, when my car, my brother's car, my sister-in-law's car, and 3 or 4 friends and relatives cars were stolen, the police did not solve the crime.

Richard Moran, professor of criminology and sociology at Mount Holyoke College:
"Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In: _Crime_ P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.

…
Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of police to influence crime is extremely limited. For example, neither the number of police in a community nor the style of policing appears related to the crime rate. In 1991, San Diego and Dallas had about the same ratio of police to population, yet twice as many crimes were reported in Dallas. Meanwhile, Cleveland and San Diego had comparable crime rates even though Cleveland had twice as many police officers per capita. And in 1992, the District of Columbia had both the highest homicide rate and the most metropolitan police per square foot of any city in the nation.

The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis of police beats in Newark, NJ, found that foot patrols had virtually no effect on crime rates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Bayley, Ph.D. (1961) Princeton University, Distinguished Professor of Criminal Justice, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany:

_Police for the Future_ Oxford University Press: New York 1994
"The police do not prevent crime (Ch 1)...Dishonest law enforcement...is by and large what we have now. It occurs when the police promise to prevent crime but actually provide something else - namely, authoritative intervention and symbolic justice." (p. 124)

A study of policing in Detroit from 1926 and 1977 found no relationship between policing and crime rate (Ch 1)
--_What Works in Policing_ by David H. Bayley (Editor). New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City preventive patrol experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas City preventive patrol experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment was a landmark experiment carried out between 1972 and 1973 by the Kansas City Police Department. It was evaluated by the Police Foundation. It was designed to test the assumption that the presence (or potential presence) of police officers in marked cars reduced the likelihood of a crime being committed.

The design took three police beats in Kansas City, and varied patrol routine in them. The first group received no routine patrols, instead the police responded only to calls from residents. The second group had the normal level of patrols, while the third had two to three times as many patrols.

Victim surveys, reported crime rates, arrest data, a survey of local businesses, attitudinal surveys, and trained observers who monitored police-citizen interaction were used to gather data.

Major findings

1. Citizens did not notice the difference when the frequency of patrols was changed.
2. Increasing or decreasing the level of patrol had no significant effect on resident and commercial burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism-crimes.
3. The rate at which crimes were reported did not differ significantly across the experimental beats.
4. Citizen reported fear of crime was not affected by different levels of patrol.
5. Citizen satisfaction with police did not vary.

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.

[EBWick]

Originally Posted by ann_lepore

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.

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.

Mark Ciavarella, Former Pa. Juvenile Court Judge, Convicted in Alleged 'Kids for Cash' Case - ABC News