Crime Regulation Agency

[Dr.Who]

Kudos to GenSeneca for coining the term.

Imagine a world in which instead of police we had a crime regulation agency.

Instead of arresting criminals we would regulate them. They would be taxed and there would be oversight. Instead of the SEC regulating securities it would regulate stealing and be called the Stolen propety Exchange Commision which would make sure that pawn shops were regulated and taxed when they accepted stolen property.

You get the idea. How else would it look?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Kudos to GenSeneca for coining the term.

Imagine a world in which instead of police we had a crime regulation agency.

Instead of arresting criminals we would regulate them. They would be taxed and there would be oversight. Instead of the SEC regulating securities it would regulate stealing and be called the Stolen propety Exchange Commision which would make sure that pawn shops were regulated and taxed when they accepted stolen property.

You get the idea. How else would it look?

I have a beter idea, imagine one where CEO's and workers at big banks, Oil Companies, and places like that...actually went to jail for crimes rather then just be regulated...and as a rule, not a exception.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have a beter idea, imagine one where CEO's and workers at big banks, Oil Companies, and places like that...actually went to jail for crimes rather then just be regulated...and as a rule, not a exception.

All companies, not just big companies, are regulated (perpetually investigated) to watch for criminal activity. If that's such a fantastic idea, then shouldn't we regulate (perpetually investigate) the activities of every single American citizen to monitor for criminal acts?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

All companies, not just big companies, are regulated (perpetually investigated) to watch for criminal activity. If that's such a fantastic idea, then shouldn't we regulate (perpetually investigate) the activities of every single American citizen to monitor for criminal acts?

yea, we could have some form of ..police or something...hmmmmm

 

[GenSeneca]

yea, we could have some form of ..police or something...hmmmmm

I forgot, you're a Progressive...

Look, it's Pocket!

 

[Dr.Who]

I have a beter idea, imagine one where CEO's and workers at big banks, Oil Companies, and places like that...actually went to jail for crimes rather then just be regulated...and as a rule, not a exception.

Each and every single time they commit a crime they should go to jail. Are there lots of examples of times that they commit crimes and do not go to jail? When they do not commit crimes should they be left alone?

 

[Dr.Who]

All companies, not just big companies, are regulated (perpetually investigated) to watch for criminal activity. If that's such a fantastic idea, then shouldn't we regulate (perpetually investigate) the activities of every single American citizen to monitor for criminal acts?

Since they are in fact being regulated so well and if as you say the purpose of regulation is to look for crimes then they must obviously be going to jail - that or the government is completely inept.

Is the purpose of regulation to look for crime (though I will admit that in the process of regulation crimes may be discovered)? If the purpose of regulation is to look for crime that would be a violation of the need to have a warrant BEFORE searches are conducted.

In the case of the CRA its purpose would be to regulate criminals so that when they do commit a crime it can be discovered? And as you are saying, since the government does not know who a criminal is until after he has committed a crime then obviously all citizense need to be regulated by the CRA before they commit crimes.

 

[Dr.Who]

yea, we could have some form of ..police or something...hmmmmm

Police are to catch guilty people. We are proposing here to regulate people who are not guilty. Is there something wrong with that?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Police are to catch guilty people. We are proposing here to regulate people who are not guilty. Is there something wrong with that?

did that cop car that pulled me over a few years ago...know I was going to commit a crime so was waiting? no but it was there watching me...even though I had not been speeding before...and then when I did , I got stopped...

Police already are out there guilty or not, just like there are security gaurds the airport...they don't only come check you when you have proven to be a terrorist.

If you think the world can run on the honor system, have at it.

we can do evrything based on it, pay your taxes on the honor system...don't worry there will be no IRS to check to make sure you did pay what you owe or that you did not cheat...as we know evryone would just pay there correct amount right? I mean no use checking peoples tax retruns unless they are proven already to be cheating...

 

[GenSeneca]

In the case of the CRA its purpose would be to regulate criminals so that when they do commit a crime it can be discovered? And as you are saying, since the government does not know who a criminal is until after he has committed a crime then obviously all citizense need to be regulated by the CRA before they commit crimes.

That's absolutely correct... And as I'm sure Pocket would agree, certain "common sense" measures need to be put in place to "police" the population... After all, people cannot be trusted to do anything without government regulation.

For example...

Drunk Driving is a serious problem in the US and I'm sure Pocket will fully support the following idea for the CRA. You're probably familiar with the practice of installing breathalyzers on the vehicles of people who are repeat DUI offenders; if the person cannot blow a 0.0, then their car will not start.

Well under the CRA, government can simply mandate that ALL vehicles operating inside the United States be outfitted with such a system and the CRA can pull people over at random for breathalyzer tests, just to check and make sure the driver didn't cheat. If anyone tries to start their car and blows 0.01 or higher, law enforcement is immediately dispatched to the location in order to protect the public from the potential menace.

Of course that would be just the first step in eradicating drunken driving. Obviously we would have to add even more regulations that are even more strict and invasive if we are ever going to be serious about eliminating drunken driving.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you think the world can run on the honor system, have at it.

Its a difference between operating on the system of innocent until proven guilty, the system Dr. Who and I advocate, or a system of guilty until proven innocent, the system you think will lead to the Progressive World of Next Tuesday.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its a difference between operating on the system of innocent until proven guilty, the system Dr. Who and I advocate, or a system of guilty until proven innocent, the system you think will lead to the Progressive World of Next Tuesday.

drinking and blowing a .01 is not breaking a law thus why would car not start?

 

[GenSeneca]

drinking and blowing a .01 is not breaking a law thus why would car not start?

Should Cars Have Built-In Breathalyzers?

Some 47 states currently have in-car breathalyzer laws where a driver convicted of DUI or DWI may be forced to install an "interlock" device, connected to the ignition, that monitors the amount of alcohol on a driver's breath and prevents the car from starting with a positive reading.​

0.01 is a positive reading.

Should Cars Have Built-In Breathalyzers?

A new bill, backed by Senator Charles Schumer of New York, would allocate $12 million to car makers to bring forward technologies that sense alcohol in a driver's breath or contained in their sweat.​

He's not proposing them just for DUI offenders but for everyone who operates a vehicle... Now that's Progressive!

Police state

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.​

The Progressive World of Next Tuesday is getting closer comrades!

Grab your shovel and report to the nearest CRA office to be assigned a monitoring anklet. While they were previously reserved only for paroled felons, these stylish and highly sought after monitoring anklets will be issued to every citizen in the US, and all thanks to the tireless efforts of the CRA and your federal government.

 

[Dr.Who]

drinking and blowing a .01 is not breaking a law thus why would car not start?

The CRA does not need you to break laws - only regulations.

 

[GenSeneca]

The CRA does not need you to break laws - only regulations.

Thanks for making this thread and I'm honored that coining the phrase "Crime Regulation Agency" was the impetus for it's creation.

What's scary is that these institutions and policies which sound completely absurd today could be a fact of life 20 years from now. Most people probably thought I was being ridiculous in claiming government would put breathalyzers in the vehicles of all Americans and they were probably shocked to find that I was actually talking about a policy that had already been proposed by current politicians.

But government putting all 300+ million Americans through a quarterly "audit", much like it does with companies, would have huge potential for uncovering crime of all sorts. If people had to keep track of every last penny of their income and spending and make verifiable reports to the IRS, crimes such as tax evasion, the illegal drug trade, prostitution, illegal gambling etc. would become increasingly difficult to hide from the government. Of course that's where the CRA would come in, the IRS audits the accounts and the CRA would run the investigation and take whatever legal means were necessary to deal with offenders.

We could call it a program for greater personal (rather than corporate) accountability. We could cite the existence of these crimes as proof that Americans cannot be trusted to have as much freedom as they currently possess and explain to the public that these "pragmatic" and "common sense" measures are necessary to ensure the peace and tranquility of a free nation.