The 5 Most Popular Safety Laws (That Don't Work)
Really, is it ever possible to be too safe? Especially when it's our children at stake?
Actually, yes. Especially when the rule or law intended to make us safe is so poorly thought-out that it either does nothing but suck up public money, or creates a ripple effect of unintended side effects. We're talking about things like...
#5.
Speed Limits
The Idea:
Speeding is a major cause behind many fatal accidents, so it must also be true that mandating lower speed limits will make us all safer, right? Like how after marijuana was made illegal, you could hardly find anybody smoking the stuff.
It was back in 1974 that the federal government passed the National Maximum Speed Limit Law in the USA, slowing America down to a creeping 55 miles per hour. The main reason behind the law was to lower gas consumption, but President Nixon promised us it would make our streets safer as well.
A joke about Richard Nixon being untrustworthy? Cracked breaks new ground in comedy once more!
Partially thanks to anti-speed limit activists like Sammy Hagar, in 1995 it was repealed. But not everyone was happy about that. Some states and many cities still have their highway speed limits set at or near the '74 lows, and a lot of people support bringing the '74 law back into effect before every man, woman and child in the country finds themselves living in the horrifying universe of 2 Fast 2 Furious.
The future.
But There's a Problem...
After the National speed limit was repealed, the state of Montana removed all non-urban speed limits in their state. A few years later, engineers working with the state decided to venture out to see just what kind of post-apocalyptic Death Race wasteland their lawless state had produced. What they found was that, you guessed it, on the roads where they removed the speed limits, fatalities didn't go up at all.
Proponents of the national law still argue that traffic fatalities nationwide did drop during the national speed limit's lifetime. Buzz-killing critics of the law point out that no, no they didn't.
Why Doesn't it Work?
Because, and this surprised the hell out of us, people aren't completely retarded. As it turns out, people tend to drive at speeds they feel comfortable driving. Yes, there are reckless madmen out there, but they're not going to obey a couple of digits on a sign anyway. It just becomes a make-work project for traffic cops.
By the way, even worse than speed limits are speed bumps, the irritating, jarring humps they put in parking lots and such, intended to physically force drivers to slow down and make their CD players skip. Not only do those things not prevent accidents, but they keep ambulances from getting to emergencies, which is exactly the sort of thing you don't want happening when years of bacon sundaes and cookie-dough sandwiches finally catch up with you.
The above link references a study in Boulder, Colorado that found speed bumps kill as many as 85 people for every one life they save. Holy shit! We think landmines have a better ratio.
#4.
Three Strikes Laws
The Idea:
Psychologists have found that criminals who have committed three felonies are likely to continue committing felonies for the majority of their non-jailed lives. After wiping their feet with the whole "make the punishment fit the crime" thing, they decided to institute a new law, based on that theory and the rules of Baseball.
These "Three Strike" laws mandate very long prison terms--up to life--for criminals who have commit their third felony, regardless of what that felony was. Surprisingly the law did not originate from the home of western-style, retard-executing justice (Texas). California instituted the first Three Strike law in 1994.
Pictured above: Legal Precedence.
The law was very popular at first, and a number of states adopted it shortly thereafter. California's crime rate, which had peaked shortly before the law's implementation, dipped significantly in the years after. This was seen as proof of the law's success.
But There's a Problem...
First, correlation does not equal causation. We have a grand history of ignoring this fact when it is politically expedient to do so. So while California's crime rate did decline, so did the rest of the country's. In fact, violent crime dropped more in states without Three Strike laws (4.6 percent) than in the states that had them (1.7 percent).
Why Doesn't it Work?
Why would they let him keep his ski mask?
Three Strike laws punish petty criminals as often as the violent ones everybody has in mind when talking about "getting tough on crime." Men have been put away for life for shoplifting cookies, video tapes and golf clubs, essentially equating those crimes with violent assault or attempted murder.
As a result, California's prisons and jails have been flooded with hundreds of thousands of new occupants. That, combined with many of their facilities being condemned as unfit to live in, has led to a prison overcrowding crisis.
Gosh, it's almost like we shouldn't rely on sports analogies to build a criminal justice system. That's too bad, because we have this little idea we like to call the Mixed Martial Arts Courtroom...
#3.
The Amber Alert
The Idea:
The Amber Alert, created in response to the highly-publicized abduction and murder of nine-year-old Amber Hagerman, is a system put in place to help find lost and abducted children by instantly flooding the highways, radio and television stations of the area with information about the missing kid.
The Amber Alert is based upon the logical principle that, deep down, we all want to be like Batman. An alert is a chance for any regular Joe to be a masked vigilante, rescuing terrified youngsters from prancing, sex-starved pedophiles.
Gotcha!
But There's a Problem...
Like covering up a hole in the wall with a poster, the Amber Alert system made everyone feel better without actually costing the government a dime.
From 2003 to 2006 independent researcher Timothy "The Griffon" Griffith conducted the first third-party investigation of the Amber Alert system. He found that, while state and local governments were claiming huge numbers of children "rescued," they were actually full of shit.
Most of the children "saved" by the Amber alert hadn't been in any danger in the first place (in most cases they'd been taken by legal guardians arguing over custody rights). The few children who WERE abducted by psychopaths usually died before the Amber Alert could even go online.
Why Doesn't it Work?
Few things are more dangerously retarded than people in large groups. There's a reason Batman works alone. Griffith and others came to the realization that, while the Amber Alerts weren't really helpful in saving children, they were great at drowning the surrounding community in a tsunami of irrational fear and paranoia. The chance of a child being abducted by a stranger is far lower than of the child, say, dying from drinking the bottle of floor wax you have in the cabinet because it has pictures of lemons on it. The latter just doesn't become a media event.
The heightened level of fear might have something to do with the fact that more and more Amber Alerts are being called in with greater frequency every year, and with less cause. Fully half of the alerts in 2004 were issued on children who were in no danger whatsoever, and 48 of the 233 alerts that year were issued for children who hadn't been abducted at all.
While Amber Alerts aren't expensive, they tie up virtually every law enforcement resource in the area. Policemen and 911 operators that could be out saving lives and arresting minorities for driving nice cars are instead diverted to fielding calls and chasing leads on children who often aren't in any danger.
And while someone, probably in our very comment section, will cry that if even one child's life was saved by the system then it was all worth it. But in the case of every "feel good" solution that doesn't actually solve the problem, you have to ask if the time and energy devoted to it couldn't be spent on something that actually works.
You know, like sex offender registries. Oh, wait...
Bill Hicks (I know, I feel like an internet cliché just mentioning him) said this regarding over-zealous anti-pornography legislation:
Reply"You know what people say to that? They say, 'But we have to protect the children, Bill!' Let me tell you something: children are smarter than any of us. You know how I know that? I don't know one child who's married with children."
I hate zero tolerance, because of it.. kids who are being attacked by another can't fight to protect themselves because they'll suffer worse than the bullies. A rat-comb is considered a weapon (for anyone who doesn't know what a rat-comb is, it's a plastic comb with a long steel pointed handle), cellphones could be used to start crap (which is why they're banned and making kids more interested in texting than classes), if you have a single cough drop you're surely a dope-head or someone who wants to give someone a 'high'. Again, I hate the law, it punishes the good kids more than bad, worst of all it's HIGHLY vague and schools tend to think differently than others so a gun design on a purse is a no-no, a Guns 'n Roses t-shirt is a no-no, anything that involves drugs and whatnot is a no-no.
ReplyI really don't get schools doing this. I go to a relatively middle range highly religious private school.. We have very little bad behavior, strict uniform etc.
Someone wizened up to the common sense fact that people using mobile phones outside of lesson times causes no problems for anyone, and that people bringing cough drops to school means they have a sore throat, not that before the school knows it, they'll be smuggling cocaine.
Some laws and rules seem to be made with practically no common sense going in to the decision, as is clearly the case with this "zero tolerance' one.
I like how first he says that people "are NOT" retarded when talking about speed limits, and then says that people are "dangerously retarded" when talking about the Amber alert. I guess trying to prove a point is more important than making sense or being consistent.
ReplyHaven't your seen Men in black? A person is smart, people are retarded dicks.
I may have paraphrased a little there.
Most of these laws were created by lobbyists on behalf of private, for profit prison contractors. That's right, every politician you here whipping a crowd of elderly white people into a frenzy with talk of being "tough on crime" is doing so because he's financially benefiting from it. Also, private companies are actually turning a profit from the misery of people who did things like smoke pot or shoplift socks when they were seventeen. They're also the ones making sure that it's impossible for a released ex-convict to get a job, rent an apartment, or apply for food stamps, thus guaranteeing their return to a life of crime. So while in more civilized countries law enforcement's goal is to keep the public safe, here in America it's to send as many people to prison as possible.
ReplyI got in an argument once with someone over whether the death penalty for rapists was a good idea. She thought it was. I argued that, although it seemed to be, it actually wasn't because a rapist would then have a motive to kill the victim. They can't kill someone twice, right? Besides, a dead victim can't call the cops, and the rape might not be discovered even if the body is. Turns out they actually tried this somewhere and, sure enough, rapes occurred just as much, but got more fatal for victims. My point in this argument was a pro-death penalty position actually made things WORSE for women overall. Why would she want that?
ReplyHer response was (paraphrased): F**k the facts. I want the satisfaction of knowing the rapist bastard died strapped down and crapping his pants.
When I replied that I was sure the women her attitude would kill to sate her desire for vengeance would appreciate that, I was banned from the site.
I disagree with the death penalty overall, so I'm glad where I live doesn't have it. And the fact that it still exists in most places (most? I don't really know, but some places anyways..) shows that peoples desires to see people punished violently is destroying thoughtful reflection on if it's actually worth it.
there's another side effect to the sex offender registry too- they are often ostracized and harrassed out of whatever neighborhood they are in, and in finding somewhere else to go, end up living in the same neighborhood as other sex offenders- creating a cluster of kiddy-diddlers in neighborhoods where people for whatever reason aren't aware. there is also the fact that once their lives are effectively ruined by the sex offender status, they can't get jobs, therefor can't pay rent, and therefor wind up homeless- leaving scores of sex offenders unaccounted for at all. then there are the reports of people targeting sex offender registrants and attacking them- because most people don't realize just how many things can put you on that registry. the average person doesn't realize that not everyone on that registry is a child molester or rapist; soliciting a prostitute can land you there in some states; public nudity (which could encompass anything from mooning to peeing in an alley) can get you on it in other states; it just isn't a well-defined system.
ReplyShoplifting cookies, videos, or even most golf clubs would not be a felony because the dollar amount of the items stolen isn't high enough.
ReplyI'm pretty sure it's about $250 in most states of America, isn't it?
I'm in total agreement with #1, I've seen kids who were suspended longer for having ibuprofen than kids with legitimate weapons. Also some were kicked out permanently for low-hazard drugs like marijuana. Personally I have never been a user or an advocate but kicking a kid out of one of the top high schools in the nation will screw his life up a hell of a lot more than a dimebag ever will. I mean, that kids probably going to be paying for that simple mistake for the rest of his life, whereas the hopeless douche who though it would be cool to bring a legit knife to school won't. You're never going to stop kids from being curious, so there is no need of such ridiculous punishment for such a minuscule offence.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesthere is a reason kids get suspended for having ibuprofen, advil, etc- and that reason is:
1. any drug can be made to look like another. i've seen kids bring x to school that looked like aspirin.
2. any drug can be made to look like another. my school just caught a boy with a bag full of rx-strength ibuprofen selling them as x. we had no way of knowing who he sold them to, where he got them from, if they were expired, or anything else.
3. any drug can be made to look like another. (are you sensing a theme here?) last year we had a student think it would be funny to grind up a shit-load of aspirin, put it in a baggie, and say it was cocaine. this inevitably led to someone stealing it, and, as we were informed the next day by a parent, snorting it- leading to a hospital visit.
4. you know the beginning already. see same as three, only we don't know what the child ground up, only that he added baking soda to it and tried to sell it to someone.
5. any drug, no matter how 'minor', has the potential for adverse reaction. if your kid is walking around school with a few advil, they're probably going to take one. nobody knows how or when some allergies occur, but today could be that day. or, the student could give the advil to someone else, who hasn't taken the drug before and doesn't know they have an allergy to it. sound impossible? it just happened in december. i had to have mom leave work and meet the kid at the e.r., after she took a tylenol given to her by another student and immediately went into anaphylactic shock.
so while you may think it's stupid or silly, to take action when a student is carrying an otc drug, try to keep in mind that this is not the 50s, or whenever the last time america had morals and ethics was. we don't know wtf is in the baggie, and your kid isn't the only kid who could potentially be harmed by its contents.
also, a kid in high school has the mental ability to make choices. if he is in one of the 'top high schools' then it's also reasonable to expect he might have enough brainpower to comprehend rules. if he chooses to break one, why shouldn't he face the consequences? half the reason why this country is slipping into idiocracy and immersed in debt and mediocrity is because nobody faces consequences. there is always someone crying, "why can't we make an exception? sure, he knew up front that this wasn't allowed, and that if he did it anyway it would result in a punishment, but why do we have to punish him?" it's disgusting, ok? you know the rules, you choose to follow or ignore the rules, and whichever you decide, you face the goddamn consequences. that's not a simple mistake, that's blatant disregard. he doesn't "get his whole life ruined," he ruins it himself by making dumbass decisions.
there is nothing wrong whatsoever with being curious- i partied like a m**********r in high school. but guess where i DIDNT do it at? in school. because that was against the rules and it wasn't worth being kicked out. see how that works? you make a decision. you live with the consequences.
and the knife-carrying douchebag? i dont know what world you inhabit, but in this one, that kid would not only be kicked out in the same manner as the dime-bag toting douchebag, he'd probably be facing charges.
(and no, these weren't all at the same school, for some reason i feel i need to say that, lest the cracked universe think every one of my students is a foaming-at-the-mouth juvenile delinquent. i have worked at a total of 10 schools in the last 8 years, both inner city and suburban, and these experiences are from a few different schools.)
Yes, there are some special cases where further action is necessary, but I'm just talking about the case of drugs like marijuana. No kid should be permanently expelled because of something nearly harmless like weed. Its that simple. I can understand further action in the case of the kid making cocaine look like advil. But that's because cocaine is a far more dangerous drug. There should not be one "solution"(zero tolerance policies)to so many different severities of drug offences. Keep in mind these kids are making mistakes they know are against the rules because they are KIDS, they shouldn't have to pay for something they did at 15 for the rest of their lives. Not saying all kids do silly things like this (I'm 15 and I know better) but I am saying zero tolerance is a closed-minded solution.
If anything is going to really improve safety on the roads, it's more education, not speed limits. Honestly I think there should be mandatory drivers education course for many "minor" infractions that just get a fine right now. Like texting or using a phone while driving. Now there's behavior that really does kill people.
ReplyEXCELLENT calls. Speed Limit signs are what everybody sees, but do they know that somewhere buried in that Driver's Instructional booklet is the absolute recommendation to drive with the flow of traffic? Adverse weather, such as snow or fog, also renders Speed Limits useless, but God bless 'em the teenagers are going to drive the posted speed regardless. We all have our pet peeves lists on the road and I'll bet you 90% of those lists are products of distracted or just plain idiotic driving. Education > Speed Limit---if you don't believe me, test both out the next time it snows.
This lawmaking mentality suggests that life is the leading cause of death!
ReplyWe were very well informed about ZERO TOLORENCE before entering public high school, there was an assymbly for freshmen and everything, but what did I see at least ONE a day when I was at school? Some sort of violent fight, I even accidentally walked into a middle of a few. Being that kids knew they would be expelled if they got into a fight, they still did it anyway, so obviously that BS doesn't work, and I lived in a nice, upstanding neighborhood and went to one of the nations highest ranking public schools.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesPlenty of kids got in trouble for a few rather innocent/poor judgement things. What did they not get in trouble for, or even get any bit of reprimand about? Bullying.
Gee, thanks lawmakers and school authorities. Way to make kids less threatening.
On the bright side, at least the lack of proper authority from the adults during my childhood has influenced me to provide proper authority as an adult for the next generation. I hope this rings true for everyone else.
Plenty of kids got in
Plenty of kids got in
Thanks alot internet connection. Any ways to undo these or delete posts?
The first 2 pics under Sex Offender Registries were dead on!!
ReplyGun Control seems to be missing from this list. With all the fucktards in the media who've jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon over the decades and sucked up to that whore Sarah Brady, it's all but put me off television entirely. If I had a penny for every time some show has done the "guns are evil and if you so much as touch one (and are not cop, since we all know law enforcement personnel are all perfect little cherubs) you'll totally turn into a murderous psycho and/or accidentally shoot an innocent puppy or kitten" special episode, I could buy out the entire United States of America lock, stock, and barrel (pun intentional).
ReplyWorse, they've even got a character on Warehouse 13 spouting that bullshit, as if it wasn't bad enough that their newest warehouse agent came from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fuck-Ups.
But I digress...
While most of those gun control freaks are complete idiots, guns do need to be regulated somehow. After all, why the f**k does a civilian need to carry around a fully automatic weapon or a heavy machine gun? For personal protection? Bullshit
@theChuckinator Guns don't need to be regulated much more than a car, just like the article says about speeding, some people will be dangerous but most will just drive safe, because people don't want to die. As it is now, safe people follow the rules and own guns, and if you take the rules away, they will probably still be safe with their guns because nobodies likes blowing their own foot off. When it comes to unsafe people, they are going to do what they want no matter the laws. Multiple laws were broken at Columbine, one more law would not have stopped those men from shooting people. Laws only stop the honest people from shooting back. I believe it was in Great Britain that a man mugged people by swinging a toaster by the chord and bashing them in the face with it, because he couldn't get his hand on a real weapon. So crime will still continue with more regulation.
Also, the reason people should be able to own a heavy machine gun: THIS IS FREAKIN' AMURICA!
Weirdly, the absence of people obeying traffic laws doesn't necessarily translate to more traffic deaths. It is very possible for people to drive at what appears to be reckless upon first glance, and still be all in once piece. If you have ever visited a big city in a third-world country, such as New Delhi, you see that people drive crazy all the time, ignore traffic lights, don't follow traffic etiquette. Then again, their scooters and little cars do not go over 30mph ever.
ReplyI definitely do not recommend people drive recklessly in the western world. Here, we simply do not have the lightning-fast reflexes for it.
I just associated 'zero tolerance' policies with applying a law too liberally, thus being a worse thing for all.
Replyoooh april fools pranks! *flees*
Yeah, I ring Advil to school to get high because it's so convenient. Hotboxing my friends car at his house before school is such an inconvenience.
ReplyMY GOD, you'd think the place where you go to learn would actually think when they make rules?
You're expecting common sense from teachers and school admins? Boy, are you in the wrong universe...
i have a court date tuesday for getting drunk and urinating outside, i damn sure hope i dont get put on any sex offender registry. that would be so unfair
ReplyI wondered how many jaws would hit the floor in panic when I read that. If you were in a dark back yard or bar alley you'll get the public intox and be done with it. Doing it by an elementary school or inside a crowded mall and you got bigger problems. Obviously your case has been settled by now, and I hope you were guilty of the former---and didn't tell the judge you eat babies. :-)
Funny you mention the sex offender registries, they're actually going to do that here in Western Australia. I don't see it working, it's just going to miss all the people who haven't been busted yet.
ReplyAustralia already has a sex offender registry, it's also known as the phone book :p
I was suspended for 5 days (the longest my school system allows before expulsion) for using the word kill. This was after I, a nerdy kid, was attacked by the school's star basketball player. He would've gotten off with nothing too, if it weren't for the fact that I had a witness who overheard him threaten me by saying "I could kill you". At that point, they were forced to enforce the policy against him too.
ReplyI direct you to the last sentence of the article. School does prepare you for adult life by showing you how arbitrary and biased law enforcement is.
To completely get rid of speed limit postings would be retarded. So your telling me someone could fly threw a school zone at 60 and it would be just fine? (I know most sane people wouldn't do that) On some highways and one the Interstate I do agree they should get rid of speed limits or at least raise them by 10 mph. As far as abolishing the sex offender registry that's just plain fuckin' stupid. Even if they did their prison time and "paid there debt to society" they still need to be monitored. I mean they raped/molested women and child for gods sake. The only ones who should not have to register are the ones who were charged for statutory rape. I don't even consider that rape if the girl consented and shes at least 16, especially if the "rapist" himself is 18 or just a couple years older.
ReplyHe wasn't talking about residendtial and school zone speed limits, he was talking about highways and interstates.
And as he pointed out, the sex offender list is horribly flawed. Statitory, and public exposer cases being treated the same as raping children. Pluss the list does nothing to stop anyone from repeating an offense.
Child rapists should just be f*****g nutered or put down like animals in the first place. Screw the damn list.
Some other things like pissing in public can land you on the sex offender list.. which is really unfair imo.