Why Government SHOULD get bigger every year.

In America, the conservative movement has an accepted axiom that "Big government is bad government".

While there is a germ of an idea here (there are a lot of  government rules and regulations that are either a) regulating things that don't need to be regulated or, worse, b) stopping good things and/or allowing bad things), the essential idea that more government = worse government is false.

Once upon a time, we were ignorant.  We did not know the dangers of radiation, mercury, foreign money on our politics, dioxins, asbestos, tobacco, Facebook political ads, cocaine, Oxycontin, pay day loans, global warming, thalidomide, AIDS, etc. etc. etc.

Back then, it would be foolish to regulate them.  We could have outlawed bananas for their radioactivity while encouraging the use of x-ray machines to measure your foot size.    But over time we learned enough about radioactivity to make good regulations about them.  Once we knew enough about radioactivity, it would have been reckless to NOT regulate them.

The thing is, our current society is VERY good at learning things.  Every year we learn why certain things kill you, and how to avoid them.

As such, every single year we need NEW regulations.    When we prove that CBD oil helps certain epileptic seizures, we need new laws allowing the cannabis derived drug to be included in medications for epileptics.   We don't want to to simply advertise that, because it will not become an effective treatment without the regulations.

That does not mean we should not eliminate the bad regulations.  But no matter what, every year:

1. Government will grow larger
2. This is a GOOD thing
3. Some jackass will complain about how government is getting too big.

 

 Are there bad government regulations and laws?  Yes.   Many.  I can even give you a list to help identify them.

1. Made by the top officials, rather than the mid to low government officials.  Congressmen, Presidents, Agency heads.   They have less expertise in the data, more expertise in how to appease others. 
2. Based on politically ideas rather than verified new discoveries
3. They have not solved or even reduced the problem.  If the problem still exists and is not shrinking,that is a bad government.
4.  

Torture, the Weak Willed and Confusion.

First note, that I labelled this Crime, as in it is a crime to torture people.   Too often we forget that, and let the torturers off scott free.

One of the flaws in the US Legal system is that it has done a poor job preventing torture.  Basically we have two amendments, the 8th to stop the cruel and unusual punishments of convicted criminals, and the 5th allows us to refuse to answer questions.

These left a lot of leeway and the Courts had to make some tough decisions, both of which made the situation worse.

First, the Eighth Amendment.  The problem with this was the wording ''and unusual".   Which means things that were usual punishments, even if we later discovered they were particularly cruel, get grandfathered in.

Oh, "Solitary Confinement" drives people mad?  Too bad, it's been going on for so long, it is now considered usual, and not unconstitutional.  Oh, poisoning you with multiple poisons, one to stop the pain and another to kill may result in a painful death, where just filling you with heroin will kill you painlessly?  Too bad, it's been going on for so long, it's usual.  

It took a long time to get the right to be fed according to your beliefs/religions, because of this.  This was a bad wording mistake by either James Madison who wrote the actual amendment, or more accurately, the English Bill of Rights (1689), where Madison took the  words "cruel and unusual punishment" from. 

The Fifth amendment is more problematic.  The problem is that it doesn't outright outlaw behavior, but instead prevents the cops from compelling  you to speak.   The idea was that compelling you to speak implies torture, but the courts had to work with the language, so they set up complex rules defining what was compelling, rather than the behavior that was torture.  So the cops found ways to do things that was not 'them compelling you to speak', that reasonable people would call torture, but that they would not get arrested for. 


It wasn't until 1963 that they established the Miranda Ruling, and over the past 55+ years, the cops have found ways to abide by these rules about 'compelling' speech, but most would consider to be loopholes.  That is, they clearly compelled the speech, but can pretend they did not.


So let's talk about the the things cops do that should be illegal, but are generally still accepted in a court of law as acceptable.


1) Questioning before someone receives medical treatment - often with the implication or outright threat that the treatment depends on answers.  This may be the suspect or someone they care about.

2) Questioning after someone has threatened in a believable manner.  This includes the drawing of a firearm, actual physical assault, etc.  None of this needs to be done by the police, it could also be done by someone associated with them or under their control - including other criminals.

3) Keep questioning for more than 8 hours - upto 16 hours - a day, usually switching off cops (because forcing a single cop to question you for 16 hours a day would be torture to the cop, and they don't want the cop to break.)


4) Delaying, or limiting the quantity or quality of food or water. 

5) Questioning while you are under the influence of drugs, such as alcohol (some states regulate this, but not the federal government).

6) Questioning Children or those with similar mental capabilities.

7) Confessions obtained using a translator - particularly for sign language.  The person interrogating should speak the same language.  

8) Confessions where the police fed the informant ANY accurate details of the crime.  The details exist for one purpose only, to verify if the confession is true or false.  Feeding them the details only makes sense if you are looking to disguise a false confession as true.

These are common issues in many cases that were overturned.  They fall into three categories:

A)  Torture.  First few are examples of actual torture, even if no actual harm is done.   Here, the cops are using sufficient fear and stress that that even normal people become willing to lie to get out of the situation.    Different people have different levels of will power, and a cop that goes anywhere near his own will power will end up sending someone an innocent man with just slightly weaker will power to jail.
 B) Stress on a weak mind   A little less severe than torture, but peoples who minds are not working right - whether they be children the disabled, or the drugged, routinely make false statements that implicate themselves.  Throw in stress and you can get them to do it on command.

C) Confusion about what was actually confessed to.   Here, improper care, whether intentional or accidental is made over what was actually confessed to, and the court is presented false information as if it were true.


None of these should be allowed.  If for some reason they need to be questioned when the prerequisites are there by accident, the cops should get a defense attorney or call it inadmissiable.

Our legal system is one of the best in the world.  It jails a higher percent of our population that most other countries.  It is designed to work on tough, smart criminals.  The weak willed need more protection, and I assure you the legal system is more than tough enough to  convict a criminal kid, even if he has an attorney when questioned.