12 September 2004

News Out and About

1. An anti-crime group really isn't buying a report commissioned by Rosemont, Illinois which says Rosemont has no Mafia ties:
Call me a cynic I guess, (but) it's not a surprise that your own paid investigators would give you a clean bill of health.
Aw, c'mon. Would the Mafia lie about being the Mafia just to get its fingers into a gambling enterprise? Never happen.

2. If nothing else, it looks like we may have cornered one export market:
The number of felons deported each year to Tijuana and Mexicali has grown – from 6,300 in 1995 to 9,500 in 2003.
3. Which may help to explain why our crime rate is down:
The 2003 violent crime rate — assault, sexual assault and armed robbery — stood at 22.6 victims for every 1,000 people age 12 and older. That amounts to about one violent crime victim for every 44 U.S. residents.

By comparison, there were 23 violent crime victims per 1,000 people in 2002. In 1993, the violent crime rate was 50 per 1,000 people, or about one in every 20 people.
4. Think the anit-gun folks will be happy once they have taken all our guns from us? Think again.

5. Boston in the Summer: Crime and Rats.

6. The number of people who are being caught driving without a license in Australia is growing by leaps and bounds. It makes me wonder if they have the same sort of laws we have here in Virginia which basically force the poor to break the law (drive) in order to do things like get to work.

7. Having your identity stolen two or three times has got to suck.

8. Is Canada turning too soft on criminals?

9. When the Sheriff lets you escape during a smoke break you'd best figure out a way to get the cuffs off or you'll probably get caught again.

10. And walking away from your work detail probably isn't going to make the remainder of your prison stay easier to endure.


Pleader said...

I am a South Australian lawyer. I deal with lots of 'minor' driving offences. Until this year, one was either driving unlicensed (small fine only), suspended (larger fine only) or disqualified (6 mths first offence, 2 yrs thereafter, maximums). The least scary was unlicensed. This has changed now. If one never held a license, first offence, you still cop a fine only. For a subsequent offence (within five years) there is a mandatory disqualification of three years plus possibility of 1 year gaol plus very large fine. Thus, if you like many had trouble getting your license in recent years (when the people that give you the license are licensed instructors, a bit like wolf catchers managing the wolf population) but drive anyway, you could end up being disqualified. If you drive then, you are in deep trouble.

Most unlicensed drivers who have never held a license are low education and low income. A large number are sole parents. Many have tried to legitimise their driving. The disqualification puts them behind the eightball for years. In a car city, like ours, this is a major continuing source of disadvantage/unemployment.

Magistrates and police in court openly admit the only people these laws hit are those who can least afford the fines and who most need to be able to drive to improve their and their children's lot. Sounds like Virginia.

Anonymous said...

You've always got some great stuff here. That number 4 is a hoot! What comes after knives, baseball bats?

George at Sleepless in Midland