It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crime Rates: Who Is at Fault?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   
OK, this is just something that I've been mulling over today. Is it possible that crime is the government's fault? Is it possible that our supposed leaders actually like the increasing rates of violent crime because they can use those crime rates to win elections without having any real intention of doing anything about it? Is it even possible that civil disobedience is rarely ever "civil" any more?

Here is my thinking on this. The government puts us in a position in which we are vulnerable--completely dependent upon them and their decisions. Then they make decisions that are contrary to what the American people want because they know that they can convince us that something is good for us if they just keep repeating themselves over and over. The government has taken our money without telling us what they are doing with it, then they have allowed corporations to ship our jobs overseas because free trade (our money and livelihood being the top commodity) is a good thing. And then they decide that we are too violent. They use the media to convince us that the cause of this violence is our guns, convincing us that we need to give up our guns in order to be safe. They know that the average American will probably never accept this inundation of media images and propoganda, and as long as we don't question it, they set themselves up to "react" to the problem on our behalf.

So then, when people finally have no options, they turn to crime. When they finally feel like they can do something that might get heard, they go too far because they have repressed their outrage for too long.

I'm not saying that people who commit crimes or become violent during protests are justified. Just that there is something more going on here than meets the eye.

I'm open to other options. Like I said, this is just something I've been mulling over today and I thought I would see what you guys thought.




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
governments fault of course

back 30 years ago or thereabouts you could leave your front door open for eg. people were more secure. secure being the key word. now the price of everything is going up, things are more extreme = people are more extreme.

the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider so crime or "desperation" is higher.

government 100 percent amigo



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Your exactly correct. Most crime involves money and its all about what is legal and what isn't. It's all set up so that it benefits some and not others. There is no reason for it, but we all have to play that game.

There's other crimes that stem from money but it all is a result of those with the money keeping it out of the hands of those who don't have it so that they can be submissive.

It is just modern slavery disguised as law and order.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by scarlett1125
 


I agree with most of your post. I think the government is certainly not always looking after the best interest of the people. They are bought and paid for by big corporations. Lots of people are making a fortune off of the Prison Industry. I do disagree with this part of your post though.



So then, when people finally have no options, they turn to crime. When they finally feel like they can do something that might get heard, they go too far because they have repressed their outrage for too long.


I think that may be the case for a few people, but the vast majority of criminals are not (IMHO) trying to be heard. They are simply committing a crime. Now, I think it is because certain parts of our society celebrate the criminal culture and we are practically brain washing our youth to be criminals because it is cool. Is it simply greed or is it manufactured?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I wonder if that "manufacturing" of a criminal culture and the glorification of it could not also be attributed to the government. The media is as controlled as it has ever been, and we were somewhat "conditioned" to accept torture by shows like 24. It's a theory--a work in progress, if you will.

As I said in the original post, I realize that this is not entirely the fault of the government. People make their own choices. But I do believe that there is something going on here that is much larger than most of us realize. The more we are willing to accept, the more control we give them. They more slowly they take those freedoms from us, the less we tend to notice. Why not use the media, the education system, and any other methods available to enslave the people?

Glorifying crime was just the start. You see, those who are "out there" are glorified. The Al Capone's and gangsters are glorified; but the Enron execs and corporate criminals are barely a blip on the radar. And in the end, we see what they want us to see--not the reality.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by scarlett1125
 



When you take the right of people to protect themselves and they're property, you give those that will take advantage of this fact an easy score. Some of our representatives have realized this basic fact and passed the 'Castle Doctrine'. This law allows you to protect yourself and your property or family in any place you have the right to be without having to retreat from the jerk whos accosting you. Also without being sued by anybody connected with the miscreant. Providing you are truely in the right. Its old time English law brought back to a place that it belongs.
Zindo



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Well the Government is supposed to be in control of our security, after all who can carry the authority to carry out policies and decisions that can affect the lives of those in social environments where crime is a means of life, not just something you do because you feel like it.

If there was no social or material reason for crime, i think we could come down that much harder on the people who do commit it.

Tis' only fair.




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Hmmm. . .I wonder if those Castle Laws also protect those whose houses are invaded by criminals and are then sued when the criminal hurts himself in the process? Those are some of the most assinine rulings that I have ever heard of!



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Yes, our government is responsible for crime, wether it be deliberate or through flagrant mismanagement. But when you have CIA admitting that they were one of the largest coc aine importers to the US, I think it becomes a lot clearer which.

There are plenty of people who watch gangster flicks, play violent video games, etc., that never commit a crime. On the other hand, you have kids so poor that they can't even afford a Playstation or television, that are out there shooting store clerks and selling crack.

Most of the people in prison today came from poverty.

I would break it down like this. Half of the people in prison today are there directly because of a lack of meaningful economic opportunity. Even if they are there for murder, the murder was probably the killing of a "business" rival or robbery victim. These are the people who knew better, but found they had little or no choice.

Take another twenty percent for ignorant people. Particulalry the young criminals this would be. The kids who grew up never knowing what a normal life is supposed to be. The ones who's parents have already lost hope. The ones who actually see glory for themselves as thugs and gangbangers. The ones who would rather throw signs and bang for their set, or be an entrepenurial murdering hustler, rather than live a normal life even if it were offered to them. This category can only be done away with through long term social reconstruction. These people are most likely lost causes.

Take another ten percent for people who really thought they could get over and get away with it. White collar criminals, violent policitcal activists, the sort who came from opportunity and decided to throw it away anyway.

Take another ten percent for those indirectly affected by economics. The person who winds up murdering their spouse, at the end of a relationship that might otherwise have been fine if it had not been for the pressures of money. This category might also include the substance abuser, who is really not much of a criminal at all otherwise.

And the last ten percent would go to the animals. The real sick #s who defy explanation, and should never see the light of day.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I would have to agree with your breakdown of the stats on this. It seems to me that those who want to blame crime on our lack of morals are not seeing that those in charge have even less morals, despite their claims about family values.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarlett1125
Hmmm. . .I wonder if those Castle Laws also protect those whose houses are invaded by criminals and are then sued when the criminal hurts himself in the process? Those are some of the most assinine rulings that I have ever heard of!


Scarlett, yes in fact it does protect you from lawsuit from any and all that is involved with or family of the violator. Deadly force is legal in these circumstances . You are also protected in any place you go as long as you are not violating private property laws. Not just your home. You are under no duty to have to retreat from the threat either.
Zindo



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Great! Now I have research to do. I'd doubt if Washington State has Castle Laws, so we might have to move! LOL



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
No need for you to move. Your state already has passed it. You need to go apply for your Weapons permit. Don't wait though. Do it now before changes in DC. Good luck.
Zindo



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I think the government and media have got mixed up in their terminology. Today you hear politicians state that things such as the patriot act (so named so that anyone who disagreed to it is accused of being unpatriotic) will help us be more secure from attack. Putting more police on the street makes us more secure, having locks and alarms makes us more secure.

To me, the less police we need, the less need we have for locks on our doors, the more secure we are, because we trust one another and look out for one another. Society is at peace the less need we have for these things, not because of them.

If there is an increase in these things, to me that is our government admitting they are losing control on our security, because it is taking more and more resources to make us secure.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Alethia,

I can agree with you to a point. While I live in Tacoma, WA, I moved here from a small town in the South. We never locked our doors, and we never worried about burglars. Gossip was probably the biggest concern. Now the biggest city closest to my hometown has the highest crime rate in the state. But those criminals don't make it to the little town where my parents are.

Living in Washington has taught me a few things. We lock up our things, but people still key our cars or paint graffiti on them. And we don't even live in a bad neighborhood! But I don't think that kids join gangs because they necessarily think it's going to be "cool." There is more to it. Granted, we glorify criminals, but we also have a system that rewards the wealthy and makes money off the backs of the poor.

Let me give you an example. When my mother was young, she never planned to go to college because her parents told her that they would never be able to afford for her to go to college. Scholarships and other options just weren't available. So instead of working for something that she believed she could never have, despite how intelligent she was, she decided that she would get pregnant at 17. And yes, I mean that she made this decision intentionally. She believed that that was her path to making something of herself because she had no other options.

I have to wonder how many kids the same age and younger turn to drugs, gangs, crime, etc. because they also feel that they have no other options. They feel that they are in a hopeless situation, and our government tells them to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." That's more than difficult to do when you have no bootstraps to speak of.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 



You are under no duty to have to retreat from the threat either.


That is not true everywhere. In fact, I think Florida is the only state where this is exactly correct, with legislation that states such explicitly.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I have actually made a concerted effort to find out exactly what the Castle Doctrine in my state says, but I have come up empty. Wikipedia has a list of all the states, but there is no link for Washington. So if anyone is clear on exactly how the Castle Doctrine breaks down in each state, I would be interested in hearing it.




top topics



 
0

log in

join