Arrests, Convictions, Crime Investigation, and Issuing Warrsnts

Economics Economics Questions
1

Ok, this is one thing that I haven’t been able to resolve in my head, but how would the above work?

For example, if person A kills person B, but society has no clue that Person A did so, how would the investigation proceed? Obviously, it’d be privately contracted, but what about the investigation and issuing of warrants? After all, since coercion is not to be used there, the suspect could just say “nope, not gonna do it” and slam the door in the private police officer’s/investigator/forensic’s face and be done with it.

And let’s say there’s a solution to that, what about arresting someone, how would that work?

2

Chances are PDAs would include a clause in their contract stipulating that if somebody is suspected of a crime the PDA would have the right to search their house. If the PDA acted unfairly and began to abuse this power then people would buy defense from another provider, which is the difference between the state and a private provider of defense.

3

This again?!?!?

Check here. The question was slightly different, but the underlying problem is the same:

In “Libertopia” all land is presumably owned by someone. These someones have PDAs/Insurance/protection/ Agencies and agreements between them and between themselves and other individuals. Most (all?) of these arrangements would probably prohibit offering safe harbor to fugitives, aiding/abetting fugitives, etc. Also, since many people are afraid of fugitives, it stands to reason that they’d be more than happy to assist in their apprehension. This could easily be accomplished by laying siege to the fugitive if he didn’t want to submit to arbitration/dispute resolution. Fine: he can suffer house arrest in perpetuity. This is easy to facilitate, because land is not public, and those people who live on adjacent lands will likely be unwilling to give him free passage. They, or their agents, will be happy to apprehend him coming or going, or to prevent people from giving the fugitive aid and comfort.

So, the longish-short answer is that it may not be necessary to use “force” as it is contemporarily conceived, i.e., masked men break down the door in the middle of the night, handcuff/hogtie the accused, and drag him off against his will to prison where he’ll be tried by 12 men who were too stupid to get out of jury duty, etc.

They could simply wait for him to arrive upon another’s property, and take him then … Most people probably couldn’t survive locked inside their own house for more than a week. Sooner or later, most people would submit to arbitration.

But, you’re also asking, “How do we determine who ‘A’ is?” That’s a different question than “Once we know (or presume to know) who the perpetrator is, how do we deal with him?” which is what I try to answer, above.

The answer to your question may not be entirely satisfactory, but then again, you’re asking lifeboat questions.

The goal in a free society is to A) prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place, and B) to compensate the victims accordingly in the event that the agency fails to protect them. Now, of course we can’t prevent all murders or all home invasions, but many of them might be prevented. Of those that slip through, we won’t be able to solve all of them, but there’s not any good reason to presume that a free market would be worse at crime solving than the State. Is there?

4

“Most (all?) of these arrangements would probably prohibit offering safe harbor to fugitives, aiding/abetting fugitives…”

how would people know if one was a fugitive? anyone could say that some person was a fugitive and it turn out not to be so.

i would say let everyone be armed and if one saw immediate lopsided violence taking place people would do their part as they saw fit - intervenig as necessary. the more religious and compassionate would then bury the bodies.

i have read that a great many murders and violent crime goes unsolved so the current system of whatever its called doesnt gurantee anything.

i know if i wanted to do some cocaine i would have to go thru a lot of trouble to avoid some s**thead from threatening me with deadly force just for wanting to get a good high.

if private security (replacing the criminal police system we have now) was strictly concerned with canvassing and surveillance of property (for those who desire to have it) much property violations would diminish. lojack and ‘the club’ deter car theft and with rf technology this will probobly deter theft of high expense items even more.

in my area there has been news coverage about probation crackpots need to track down dead beat daddies and others who the state thinks they need some trinkets from. i wuold gladly give to a organizaation that bypassed dead beat daddies to help single moms directly. i’ll look for that.

‘police officers’ are as much of the lying miscreants as they claim to be protecting and serving people from - i have had them lie directly to me repeatdly and threaten me directly. so yeah, i curse them and am glad when they suffer.

5

How do we know who is a fugitive, today? Well, unfortunately most of us don’t, but there are resources out there that publish the list of names/faces (e.g., FBI’s most wanted). Since we can presume there would be far less crime, there would be far fewer fugitives to track. Keep in mind that “fugitive” in the sense I used above, only means that the person has been accused of a crime - not that they are actually a criminal. In retrospect, I should’ve chosen another word.

In any event, in a free society, there would be far fewer crimes of which one could be accused, (i.e., crimes against person & property, only) but if you were wrongfully accused, you’d likely receive compensation for your trouble. Especially if you were innocent, would you have an incentive to face “trial” or “arbitration,” because it would allow you to establish/retain your good-standing in society. Currently, the statist justice system is so perverted, that even the accusation of wrongdoing can severely tarnish one’s reputation - even if he’s eventually acquitted.

True. And most of the crime we currently experience is related, directly or indirectly, to drug prohibition.

Standard operating procedures! That’s part of the M.O. The logic is, “Criminals will lie to us, therefore we should be able to lie to them in order to extract confessions/detailed information/etc.” The problem is, that line of logic leads them to treat everyone like a criminal.

6

I disagree. I don’t think it’s a good idea to assume that everybody will pay for some kind defense contract. “well, I have a vicious rottweiller, and that’s all I need to protect my trailer in this neck of the woods–aren’t ya, pal!”

How else will you prevent him from killing somebody when nobody is looking? Just prohibiting him from leaving his property wouldn’t work; his neighbors would probably be too scared of him.

Are you so libertarian that you would never coerce your neighbor? Even if the guy who robbed the bank had his face and voice prints?

7

Well, then what does that tell you about the value of a defense contract in that neck of the woods?

I don’t think I should have to reiterate that we simply can’t create a perfect situation. Are people going to escape? Yes. Are they going to get away? Or go unpunished/undetected? Of course they are.

His neighbors don’t have to prevent him from leaving his property, that’s what their respective agencies will be paid to do. The moment he leaves his house, and enters someone else’s property (e.g., the road), he’ll be arrested. If he can escape and elude these people in perpetuity, then you’ve crafted yourself a 27-ninjas argument, and I’m not listening. If he can’t escape and elude these people forever, then he either submits to a trial, or confines himself to his house. Either way, I’m satisfied.

What’s a “face print”?

It’s easy to sit back and talk about these perfect, CSI-Miami-Flip-Off-My-Sunglasses-a-La-David-Caruso scenarios, where we know (because it’s an assumption in the argument) that Person A is guilty of Crime X.

In teh dread real world, we don’t know this, nor can we presume to know these things in 99% of the time, ex ante. The process by which a suspect is determined may take place with or without his contribution/participation. At the time s/he is identified, he may or may not choose to try and exonerate himself. If he chooses not to, I don’t care how many “face prints” he left behind, as long as I’m reasonably certain he’ll be confined somewhere. I don’t care if that “somewhere” is his own backyard.

8

I did not say “face print”. I said “face, and voice print”. When somebody’s voice is picked up on audio surveillance, it can be analyzed and matched with 99.9% accuracy. But I digress.

My point is: if you knew who committed a crime, and you knew he was armed and dangerous, would you have any scruples about having “masked men break down the door in the middle of the night, handcuff/hogtie the accused, and drag him off against his will to prison”?

9

You know, if your aunt had a johnson, she’d be your uncle, stop loading questions, and you might get some actual discussion to happen. I think I answered your objection in my previously reply, but permit me to clarify:

Since the point of the trial/arbitration is to determine the guilt or level of wrongdoing for the accused, yes, I would object to that behavior.

If he’s tried in absentia and convicted*,* let him spend the remainder of his days in his home-made prison, or until such time as he feels it prudent to face the proverbial music and serve his term, or challenge the conviction in a lawful manner so as to exonerate himself.

Honestly, what’s the fascination with commando raids?

10

Obviously you have never been on one. They are a blast.

11

LULZ!