What makes a criminal?

I've mentioned before that after my term of service in the Navy, I became a student of US History, particularly the events surrounding the adoption of the US Constitution. But there is another period of US History I find fascinating because of its parallels to modern times.

Prohibition.

On January 17^th, 1920, the 18^th Amendment went into effect, and the United States officially became a dry nation, where alcohol was outlawed. Prohibition and the ratification of the 18^th Amendment was not something that had simply crept up on us overnight – the temperance movement had been pushing for it for nearly 100 years in the United States, and various regional pushes well before that for centuries. They finally succeeded with the 18^th Amendment, and thus began what was supposed to be a new era in the US.

Except that history shows us it failed. And failed miserably. While initially it did reduce alcohol usage, after a short while, alcohol usage actually went up. Otherwise law abiding citizens began deliberately breaking laws. Criminal organizations rose, and violent crime along with them. The tax-free profit of illegal alcohol was too tempting, and being illegal, territory and business disputes had no legal recourse to resolve them, leading to them being resolved with “might makes right” policies. In other words, violence. And lots of it.

We see a lot of parallels in the drug war that began in earnest in 1971, particularly with marijuana. But I digress from the point I want to make. Both situations, as well as other, more recent legislative attempts, beg the question “What makes a criminal?”

Most people agree on certain crimes, like murder, violent assault, rape, theft, etc. They are part of the social contract, and violating them rips the very fabric of society apart, necessitating the branding of those who would violate them as criminals and undesirables. These are fairly clear cut, and there is rarely disagreement about them.

Other crimes aren't so clear cut, like those against laws that basically function as the lubricant for a civilized society. Laws like zoning ordinances, speed limits, etc. As a libertarian, I'd love for there to be no need for these type of laws, because as functioning adults, we should be able to police ourselves, and be able to work things out with our neighbors. Unfortunately, even in the most utopian ideal of societies, where everyone is respectful of everyone else's rights, there will always be a small amount of friction between individuals that society as a whole will need to step in and mediate. Since I recognize that humans are far from perfect, I also recognize that these types of laws will always be a necessary evil.

People that violate these types of laws can also be branded as criminals by society, even though a significant portion of society may not see them as such.

There is another class of crime that is particularly troubling. It's those crimes defined by government as crimes for no other reason than to protect the existence of that government. Wile this would include sedition or treason as defined by the Constitution, I'm primarily talking about the proliferation of laws, proposed legislation and executive policies we've seen since the 1930s. Things like REX84, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, NSPD51, USC 2384, and The Smith Act. Things that often go outside the boundaries of our constitution and attempt to side step the bill of rights.

But even more troubling than those, and more relevant to the point I would like to make are the laws that take formerly legal activities or possessions and make them illegal “for our safety.” Laws like Prohibition.

When something formerly legal is suddenly made illegal to keep us safe, who are the real criminals? When otherwise law abiding citizens are turned into criminals overnight simply because a president or governor or mayor signed a new law, does that truly make that citizen a criminal?

The law says yes, it does.

But is it really that simple. Isn't that kind of a bitter pill to swallow when you or someone you love is suddenly a criminal merely because a signature has been put to a piece of paper?

Now, in some cases, one could argue “well X causes Y harm, and it makes sense for it to be illegal.”

Maybe. Maybe not.

Consider, for a moment, how the first moment of Prohibition must have been like. If a man came home from work, and enjoyed a single beer with dinner every night, or a woman enjoyed the occasional glass of wine before bed, they instantly became criminals if there was any beer or wine left in their household the very moment that law went into effect. Even if they were otherwise 100% law abiding citizens.

Really, truly think about that for a moment. One minute, they're a law abiding citizen, the next minute, through no action of their own, they are criminals.

Yes, yes, I know – they could have made sure to drink or get rid of the alcohol before it became illegal, but that's not the point of this thought exercise. The point is, is it right for nothing more than the signature on some legislation to turn a law abiding citizen into a criminal for something they acquired while it was legal?

I can hear some of you now “Yes, but...” Yes, but nothing. Really think about it. You can use all sorts of examples to justify it all you want, but I'm trying to get you to think outside the box here. Don't think about it in the case of the controversial subjects like guns or drugs or alcohol. For those of you who are married, while you consider my next part, also think about that subtle shift in your opinion once your vows were finalized. Look around your room, or your house and pick a favorite object of yours or a family member. 

How would you feel if, for whatever reason, that object suddenly became illegal?

Would you remain a law abiding citizen and turn it in or destroy it? Or would you keep it, and become a criminal? What lengths might you go to retain it?

What if it's not your object, but that of a spouse or other loved one? Would you insist they get rid of it? Would you aid them in being a criminal? Would you turn them in to remain a law abiding citizen?

Not such a simple problem, is it?

Then consider, if you choose to remain a criminal, to defy the law, what other laws might you be willing to disobey? I mean, you're already a criminal, right?  

In the end, each of us can only answer this type of question for ourselves. Only we really know what will make us a criminal. But something I do know, from my insignificant studies of people and history is that more often than not, most people will choose to become a criminal if they do not agree with the law that suddenly made them one. And that once they are labeled a criminal, they are much more likely to be willing to disobey other laws.

Who's fault is that? 

The Emotions of Numbers

People and numbers are a funny combination.

Math and numbers are logical things. They follow rules that are consistent and unvarying. Two plus two always equals four. Any given equation will always produce the same result when given the same exact set of inputs.

People, however, are not always logical things. We can be logical, but we are usually emotional, whether or not we like to admit it. We don't always react exactly the same way, even though the circumstances may be the same. Being five minutes late to work on one day may elicit a completely different reaction from your boss than it will on another day.

Nowhere can you tell this is the case more than when comparing peoples reactions to numbers, especially when attached to traumatic events. Those knowledgeable about numbers can present them along with other facts in ways that deliberately manipulate the emotions of those who don't know better, or who fail to think beyond their emotional reaction. If you don't think beyond your emotional reaction, you WILL allow yourself to be manipulated.

Allow me to illustrate with some hypothetical examples. I could use actual numbers and situations, but that could distract from what I'm trying to illustrate. So let me be perfectly clear – the situations I'm about to present to you are completely fictitious examples I made up to illustrate how presenting numbers can manipulate you.

Suppose I told you that in the last 30 years in the city of Ulder, 1/10^th of 1% of the population were killed by lightsabers? That's probably not going to evoke much of a reaction from you. One is a small number, 1/10^th of that is even smaller. Stating the number that way isn't going to evoke much of a reaction – it doesn't register for most people as significant. Which may actually be the intent. Especially if I don't also present you with how big the population is at the same time.

If I tell you that Ulder's population is 1000, some quick math tells us that only one person died from a light saber wound. (1000x0.1%=1). If Ulder's population is really 10 million people though, that means 10,000 people died from light saber wounds. If I present the number as 1/10^th of 1%, I'm presenting the number for minimal emotional effect. But if I present it as 10,000 people killed by lightsabers in Ulder, I'm presenting it for maximum emotional effect. Because ten thousand is a big number and it registers as significant for most people. Bigger numbers register even more significantly.

Furthermore, I initially said “In the last 30 years”. Those 10,000 light saber deaths were over 30 years. That's an average of 333 to 334 deaths per year. An average. But that doesn't mean that it was 334 deaths last year, nor 334 deaths in the first year. It very well could be that 30 years ago 9999 people were killed by light sabers, and only one person last year.

And then you have to consider that merely presenting the numbers doesn't tell a lot of the facts behind those deaths. Were they suicides? Were they Jedi brutality? Were they the result of an explosion at the light saber factory? Was there a war, official or otherwise?

There is also no perspective set to those numbers. Has the population been growing or stagnant or declining over that 30 years? What is the over all death rate? What were the other causes of death? If 50.000 a year are dying from another cause like starvation, is light saber death really the thing to be focused on? What are the rates of light saber deaths in the cities around Ulder? Are they lower or higher? And what other factors might make their rates different?

So, you see, I can influence your opinion of light sabers in the city of Ulder simply in the way I present my data on the number of those deaths. Ten thousand deaths is perceived as a lot, less than 1% is not. And what else I tell you or don't tell you is just as important to how you may perceive my message.

Numbers don't lie. They don't manipulate. But the people who present those numbers to you can, and many of them will, all the while using your own perception about the logical nature of numbers against you.

You cannot control the fact they will lie, they will manipulate and they will twist things to their favor. You can, however, educate yourself against their manipulation, and watch for it. The only way to fight against it is to be prepared to do your own research about the numbers they present.

I will freely admit that the numbers and facts that I will present here on this blog are sometimes going to be used in such a way as to illustrate the point I am trying to make. I don't think it's possible to present numbers in such a way as to not be manipulating, at least not without tens of tens of pages of dry, boring facts, figures and statistics. I promise I will do my best to not use them to outright lie to you, but I invite you to double check me, to look into the things I mention. Do your own research. I'm comfortable enough with what I say to engage in a reasoned discussion with those willing to look at the same data and use critical thinking skills to reach their own conclusions.

It is how we learn, how we learn to think. It is an essential part of freedom and liberty.