Victimless Crime?
Sam Aurelius Milam III
It's
well known to statisticians, and apparently unknown to most other people,
that statistical predictions apply to populations, but not to individuals.
That is, it's impossible to calculate a prediction that applies to a population
of one, an individual. Only populations greater than one are subject
to statistical predictions. The failure to understand this principle
is of great significance. Consider drivers for example. It's
possible to predict, using statistical methods, that within a certain population
of drivers, there will be some percentage of accidents that involve drunk
drivers. The larger the population of drivers, the more confidence
we can have in the prediction. The smaller the population, the less
confidence we will have in the prediction. However, for a population
of one, the prediction is impossible. That is, it isn't possible
to predict, statistically, that a specific drunk driver will ever have
an accident. He might drive drunk for his entire life and never do
so. It's impossible to prove that he's more likely to have an accident
than a sober driver, because it's impossible to calculate the probability
for either of them. While statistical calculations that predict a
certain probability of an occurrence within a population might justify
some government policy toward that population, it's utterly impossible
to use a statistical consideration to justify the imposition of any requirement
whatsoever upon an individual. Thus, to treat a drunk driver differently
under the law than a sober driver, based only upon a probability that the
drunk driver is more likely to cause an accident, is unjustifiable.
Furthermore, a drunk driver, by the simple fact of driving drunk, doesn't
harm anyone. Harm doesn't occur until someone is injured. If
someone is injured, then they are just as injured, whether or not one of
the drivers involved is drunk. Indeed, people are injured just as
seriously in accidents that don't involve drunk drivers at all. The
fact of being drunk is irrelevant to the extent of injury caused by accidents.
Obviously,
if probability is the only argument to the contrary, then we ought to leave
drunk drivers alone to go about their business. If a driver causes
an accident, then he should be equally guilty, whether or not he was drunk
at the time. Although a presumption of innocence for drunk drivers
contradicts the brainwashing to which we've all been exposed, even the
establishment media have reported results that support it. On the
NBC Nighty News With Tom Brokaw, Tuesday, January 7, 1997, NBC's Robert
Hager reported the results of a study by the Centers For Disease Control
which reported that there are about 1 1/2 million alcohol-related arrests
each year in the USA, but a mere 17,000 alcohol-related deaths per year.
There are over 123 million undetected incidents per year of drunk
driving which do not result in deaths, accidents, or even
arrests. Mr. Hager conceded that the number of undetected incidents
of drunk driving is "a huge number compared to those arrested or causing
an accident". Nobody seemed to notice the obvious conclusion.
There are fewer than .014% as many alcohol-related deaths as there are
drunk drivers. Fewer than 1.2% of drunk driving incidents even come
to the notice of the cops. The obvious conclusion must be that drunk
driving isn't really very likely to cause an accident. Yet, for this
non-problem, we've given up (if we want to drive) our rights to be presumed
innocent, to refuse to incriminate ourselves, to remain silent, to travel,
and even to own a car. We've allowed the creation an arrogant and
repressive police establishment staffed by strutting gestapo-style thugs.
So, is drunk driving a victimless crime? Like all of the others,
it was until we all became the victims. That happened when the arrogant
reformers used it as yet another stupid excuse to expand the police state.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
frontiersman@ida.net |
Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
July 2000
Page 1
|
|