Crime in America (from October, 2005)

One cannot have freedom from crime. If there is society, some form of organized cooperative effort to coexist together, our nature as human beings ensures that at some point there will be conflict, and conflict breeds contempt, and contempt breeds retaliation; ergo, crime. Simply put, a crime is something done which is forbidden by law, or something not done which is required by law. To expand on that definition, crime can be painted with a much broader brush. In the course of daily events, if a person or persons through intentional action or inaction causes harm to another human being, or beings, this is a crime. Two key elements of crime are harm, and intent. Although the actual definition of what constitutes harm can be somewhat nebulous, harm is a given, but intent can be very subtle, and intent is an integral aspect of what constitutes a crime. Not necessarily the intent to commit a crime, but the intent to act or not to act, the choices made which result ultimately in a criminal act denotes complicity.

When Bush reacts to the terrorist attacks of 2001 by ignoring the principles of law on which this nation is founded, he has committed a criminal act. When Bush’s actions are upheld by the 4^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the court is then committing a crime against the nation, against the laws it is sworn to uphold. Robert F. Hawes writing for the Sierra Times, September 17^th, 2005 sites the 1861 case of John Merryman whereby Merryman was roused from his bed and held without warrant by federal soldiers because he was allegedly involved with secession advocates. The parallel drawn by Hawes between this 1861 case and the 2002 case of Jose Padilla demonstrates how Bush is usurping authority in the same way as Lincoln, but more covertly. Hawes writes, “part of this new post-9/11, Lincolnesque reality is the ‘enemy combatant’ designation. Enemy combatants, the Bush administration tells us, are those individuals (including American citizens) whom the administration regards as potential terrorists. Those designated as enemy combatants, so says the administration, may be imprisoned without charge and held without trial. Yes, you read that right -- even American citizens.” Lincoln had given authority to the military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to maintain order for the common good of the country. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus by simply ignoring Padilla’s rights as a United States citizen, and Judge Michael Luttig of the 4^th Circuit Court in writing, “The exceedingly important question before us, is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war. We conclude that the President does possess such authority.” supports that Constitutional abridgement in its conclusion. The President has no such power, then or now. Whether or not John Merryman, Jose Padilla, you or I have committed a crime is irrelevant. As a citizen of the United States of America, there are first and foremost Constitutional considerations to be made in all action taken by the government, military, or police against the citizenry. In this country, one must consider the Constitutional implications of any action. To do otherwise and ignore those Constitutional implications would be to murder a living document.

Governmental crime is a subtle, rampant issue. From the abridgment of Constitutional rights, to the arbitrary citing of traffic violations, to actions taken by officials in violation of the law because they have no oath of office, the citizens of the United States are at the mercy and whim of government authority. Cities and States are corporations. Each corporation employs police to enforce the laws that the corporation imposes on its residents. The city and state employ judges to meet out sentences appropriate to the crime as required, or perhaps restricted by law; law promulgated by the governmental corporate entity. It is a grave injustice for an entity to have control over the creation of law, enforcement of law, and sentence under law, and yet these are the conditions under which we all live. Perhaps Madison was wrong, and mob rule would be better.

Freedom has historically been, and still is today the boisterous cry from the American people, but freedom comes at a great cost. Freedom is a violent, tumultuous course. Even though America leads the world in violent crime, violent crime is at an all time low in this country, and one theory in particular is quite interesting. According to Bob Brockie of the Dominion Post, “Between 1990 and 2000, the homicide rate in New York fell 74 percent, and, across the whole of the United States, by 40 percent.” Brockie points to a theory postulated by Professor Steven Levitt that the drop is caused by the increased accessibility of abortion to the poor allowing unwed mothers to avoid having babies when they have no means to care for them. Brockie writes, “Abortions were legalized in some American states before 1971. Twenty years later, the murder rates in those states suddenly fell 23 per cent. In 1973, after the landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision, legalized abortion was extended to the whole country. Twenty years later, violent crime fell dramatically over the whole country.” There is a link between the poor and crime. Poor people as a class have little or nothing to lose, psychologically tend to be more passionate than other classes, and therefore tend to react to any given circumstance with instinctual survival, self concern being the highest value. If you reduce the number of poor, you in turn reduce the number of violent crimes. The theory may well prove true, but violent crime as in murder, robbery, and hate crimes are only a symptom.

The criminal source is deep within our society, hidden within the political, governmental, and corporate systems. The true crime in this country is the confidence game being played out against the majority by the elite few. The wealthy contingent in America, the 5% of the population who control 45% of the country’s assets make well calculated decisions solely for their own interests, but by influencing politicians and government officials and judges, by controlling the corporate management of this country, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government, this 5% of the population effectively fool the other 95% of the population into believing that the majority rules. Through advertising and politicking the majority is given an ideal to pursue, the proverbial carrot in the form of the American Dream. This mollifies the majority into compliance, keeps the populace impotent to effect change, and keeps the majority, the mice in the maze all scurrying around seeking to satisfy their own self interest. There is division among the elite, but this only supports the system that separates the classes. Each elite faction fuels just enough of the poor and middle class opposing factions so as to keep the 95% from becoming a coalesced, organized majority. It is the ancient Latin maxim, Divide et impera which has been used throughout history by so many cultures in war and in government. If the 95% of the population, the poor and the middle class ever managed to put aside their self interest for but a moment, the revolution would come. The subtle underlying crime of the state and the elite would be stopped.

No group can ever be completely and totally free of crime, but the more sinister and subtle crime of the wealthy elite standing on the backs of the common man could be eliminated. The American people could rise up and take control of their lives, establish a new society, free from the tyranny of the elite. Although 100% freedom is anarchy, eliminating the control of the elite would establish a more free society for the majority, but is that truly what the majority want? The American people could have more freedom. Unfortunately, the one aspect of American patriotism that is true; if you want freedom, you must believe it is worth dying for. Now that I think about it, maybe I’m happier just being a mouse in a maze. Maybe the perceived safety of captivity is just right for me. I wouldn’t say, “Give me liberty or give me death.” as did Patrick Henry in 1775. I think I would say, “Give me a warm meal and then let me sleep.”