I mean, the English as used in England.
A Telegraph headline: Police refuse to say if shooting victim Anthony Grainger was armed. This was a suspected robber. Anywhere else - including ,astonishingly, Finland, Sweden etc - the headline would speak about "suspected robber", not "shooting victim".
The victimisation culture of serious criminals is really out of hand in Britain.
The police won't say if the man was armed. That is hardly surprising. Whatever the police says, if there is a tiniest error or debatable detail, it will be used against the officers in question and in justification for just about anything (including, but not limited to, arranging a riot, burning down a section of London, or emptying an electronics store of big screen TV's.
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste crime. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste crime. Näytä kaikki tekstit
6.3.2012
12.8.2010
Language recognition
This is not about recognizing what was said. It's about recognizing what language was spoken.
HS reports that a woman was raped in Helsinki, and the perpetrators were speaking either Russian or Romanian.
I'm rather suspicious of this detection of language. Of course, first of all, there is the point that reports of abductions and rapes aren't always entirely to be trusted (sometimes they are made up); secondly, there is the point that yes, women do have a right to do anything and not get raped. Women should be able to go in the middle of a night to a strange van, driven by completely unknown men speaking an unknown language, and not get raped - but still, why on earth should a woman take risks like that? I don't get it. But here my attention mainly goes to the claim that the language was Russian or Romanian. How does she know?
I claim to be rather good at languages; I find it easy - more easy than most people I know - to pick up elementaries of a language that is new to me, and understand bits and make myself understood. But as I haven't traveled in Eastern Europe, I don't stand a chance in recognizing Central and East European Slavic languages apart from each other, and telling which is which. Polish or Chech or Croatian, Slovakian or Slovenian or Serbian or Sorbian, Bulgarian or Macedonian. To me, they all resemble Russian a little bit; I do realize they're not actually Russian, but if someone speaks Ukrainian or Belarusian, I can't tell those apart from dialects of Russian, nor from Polish. From written language I can deduct more, starting from the alphabet used: Cyrillic or Latin, and how prolific it is with consonants - the Polish are poor and cannot afford vowels.
I can pick which one is Hungarian, because that is entirely different. I know a number of Hungarians and have heard them speak, and when I go to a public space like a railway station in Budapest, although I don't understand a word of what is being said around, the tone and note of speech is somehow familiar - the relationship of this Fenno-Ugric language to Finnish is somehow evident to me.
But we should realize that Romanian does not belong to the group of Slavic languages, either. It is a Romanic language and resembles French or Italian much more than Russian.
So how come the woman can say that the language spoken by rapists was Russian or Romanian? She (or the police) may of course think of Romanians because there has been so much talk about Romanian beggars and thieves in Finland, and Russians are always good suspects for anything bad here, but I'm afraid the guilt was passed far too easily. If she says Russian or Romanian, the linguistical distance between these two is fairly big and most of Europe lies in between. The men could have been speaking some other Slavic or Romanic language - like those listed above, or Romansh spoken in Switzerland, or Romani (Gypsy). Or they could have been speaking Albanian, which is also an Indo-European language (as most European languages are, except Fenno-Ugric languages and Basque). Or, who knows, Greek, as the saying in English goes that "this is all Greek to me". (When applying the same proverb, Finns refer to Hebrew).
Perhaps the only safe statement she could have made would have been that the men spoke "an European language that was strange to me", and the part about European is probably a bit uncertain, since it might just as well have been e.g. Turkish or Kurdish. Not very appropriate to pinpoint Russians or Romanians only.
Naturally, the responsibility for this is more with the newspaper and the police than the poor woman, who was probably shocked. If things happened like it was reported, she was violated, and that was wrong. But still, the linguistic method to point out who did it doesn't really work out so easily, and mostly seems to reflect currently popular prejudices.
HS reports that a woman was raped in Helsinki, and the perpetrators were speaking either Russian or Romanian.
I'm rather suspicious of this detection of language. Of course, first of all, there is the point that reports of abductions and rapes aren't always entirely to be trusted (sometimes they are made up); secondly, there is the point that yes, women do have a right to do anything and not get raped. Women should be able to go in the middle of a night to a strange van, driven by completely unknown men speaking an unknown language, and not get raped - but still, why on earth should a woman take risks like that? I don't get it. But here my attention mainly goes to the claim that the language was Russian or Romanian. How does she know?
I claim to be rather good at languages; I find it easy - more easy than most people I know - to pick up elementaries of a language that is new to me, and understand bits and make myself understood. But as I haven't traveled in Eastern Europe, I don't stand a chance in recognizing Central and East European Slavic languages apart from each other, and telling which is which. Polish or Chech or Croatian, Slovakian or Slovenian or Serbian or Sorbian, Bulgarian or Macedonian. To me, they all resemble Russian a little bit; I do realize they're not actually Russian, but if someone speaks Ukrainian or Belarusian, I can't tell those apart from dialects of Russian, nor from Polish. From written language I can deduct more, starting from the alphabet used: Cyrillic or Latin, and how prolific it is with consonants - the Polish are poor and cannot afford vowels.
I can pick which one is Hungarian, because that is entirely different. I know a number of Hungarians and have heard them speak, and when I go to a public space like a railway station in Budapest, although I don't understand a word of what is being said around, the tone and note of speech is somehow familiar - the relationship of this Fenno-Ugric language to Finnish is somehow evident to me.
But we should realize that Romanian does not belong to the group of Slavic languages, either. It is a Romanic language and resembles French or Italian much more than Russian.
So how come the woman can say that the language spoken by rapists was Russian or Romanian? She (or the police) may of course think of Romanians because there has been so much talk about Romanian beggars and thieves in Finland, and Russians are always good suspects for anything bad here, but I'm afraid the guilt was passed far too easily. If she says Russian or Romanian, the linguistical distance between these two is fairly big and most of Europe lies in between. The men could have been speaking some other Slavic or Romanic language - like those listed above, or Romansh spoken in Switzerland, or Romani (Gypsy). Or they could have been speaking Albanian, which is also an Indo-European language (as most European languages are, except Fenno-Ugric languages and Basque). Or, who knows, Greek, as the saying in English goes that "this is all Greek to me". (When applying the same proverb, Finns refer to Hebrew).
Perhaps the only safe statement she could have made would have been that the men spoke "an European language that was strange to me", and the part about European is probably a bit uncertain, since it might just as well have been e.g. Turkish or Kurdish. Not very appropriate to pinpoint Russians or Romanians only.
Naturally, the responsibility for this is more with the newspaper and the police than the poor woman, who was probably shocked. If things happened like it was reported, she was violated, and that was wrong. But still, the linguistic method to point out who did it doesn't really work out so easily, and mostly seems to reflect currently popular prejudices.
Investigating fuel thefts
I think the Finnish police is a bit short-sighted when it announces it would not like to investigate fuel thefts, and wants petrol stations to change to an operational model used in many other countries: fuel pumps are either fully automatic card/cash machines, or you first go to the cash counter and pay, and fill your tank only after payment. In Finland, the typical way to act at a gas station is still that you just drive your car to the pump, fill your tank, walk to the counter and tell the cashier which pump number you used and pay. Some people - very few, but enough to make a nuisance to the police - skip the part about visiting cashier, and just drive away.
Fully automatic card/cash dispensers are becoming more common as well - not really because of thefts, but simply because they can be operated 24/7 without significant staff costs.
But why is the police's idea short-sighted?
1. Because it increases the perception that the police is unwilling to solve crimes and apprehend criminals. They're concentrating on easy money that can be collected with speed cameras that in Finland are often more like traps than tools for road safety (hint: the road safety message would be more credible if the speed limits were clearly marked at the location of the cameras, as is done in other countries where I've been driving, like France and Germany).
2. Because the petrol thefts are typically rather unambiguous and clear crimes to solve and doing so leads you to find people that are in danger of slipping to a career where they commit other, more serious crimes. No, I don't mean that it leads you to just some car drivers. The pattern of stealing fuel is connected with other forms of petty theft, unsocial behaviour and, of course, dangerous driving. Visiting these people early in the career just might make a difference for how they behave in the long run.
3. Because it means we're giving in to anti-social behaviour, and I dislike that.
Fuel is often stolen by people who've stolen the car as well, and are often driving under influence. If you look at the statistics and analysis of deadly road accidents (see previous post), you can see that this group is well represented in the set of drivers responsible for fatal accidents.
The same argument can be made about the speed cameras, with whom the police (at least police leadership) have fallen in love. And the same thing indeed does work to some extent: you can spot some of the reckless drivers like that, and this helps to locate them. However, there are also some differences: often the most reckless drivers don't need to care about speed cameras because they drive stolen vehicles, so someone else will bear the brunt of police investigation. They even do the extreme speeding on the wrong side of the road, because then the speed camera won't get them. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to exceed the speed limit by moderate amounts accidentally; the speed limits are these days set rather illogically and are also poorly marked (as a number of senior policemen can testify when they themselves have been caught). With minor speeding, there was no intent for crime nor harming anyone.
So, I'd recommend that the police just stops complaining and does their work.
I understand it is frustrating. Career criminals are seldom jailed, and even if they are, they're soon back out, because keeping them inside is expensive. They don't pay their fines. Still, I don't think it is fair to concentrate on minor offenses by middle-class drivers just because it is possible for the state to collect more money from them.
Finally, yes: sometimes absent-minded people really forget to pay. That has happened to me a couple times over the 25 years that I've been driving. I did notice pretty soon, and turn back and pay, before the message reached the police.
Fully automatic card/cash dispensers are becoming more common as well - not really because of thefts, but simply because they can be operated 24/7 without significant staff costs.
But why is the police's idea short-sighted?
1. Because it increases the perception that the police is unwilling to solve crimes and apprehend criminals. They're concentrating on easy money that can be collected with speed cameras that in Finland are often more like traps than tools for road safety (hint: the road safety message would be more credible if the speed limits were clearly marked at the location of the cameras, as is done in other countries where I've been driving, like France and Germany).
2. Because the petrol thefts are typically rather unambiguous and clear crimes to solve and doing so leads you to find people that are in danger of slipping to a career where they commit other, more serious crimes. No, I don't mean that it leads you to just some car drivers. The pattern of stealing fuel is connected with other forms of petty theft, unsocial behaviour and, of course, dangerous driving. Visiting these people early in the career just might make a difference for how they behave in the long run.
3. Because it means we're giving in to anti-social behaviour, and I dislike that.
Fuel is often stolen by people who've stolen the car as well, and are often driving under influence. If you look at the statistics and analysis of deadly road accidents (see previous post), you can see that this group is well represented in the set of drivers responsible for fatal accidents.
The same argument can be made about the speed cameras, with whom the police (at least police leadership) have fallen in love. And the same thing indeed does work to some extent: you can spot some of the reckless drivers like that, and this helps to locate them. However, there are also some differences: often the most reckless drivers don't need to care about speed cameras because they drive stolen vehicles, so someone else will bear the brunt of police investigation. They even do the extreme speeding on the wrong side of the road, because then the speed camera won't get them. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to exceed the speed limit by moderate amounts accidentally; the speed limits are these days set rather illogically and are also poorly marked (as a number of senior policemen can testify when they themselves have been caught). With minor speeding, there was no intent for crime nor harming anyone.
So, I'd recommend that the police just stops complaining and does their work.
I understand it is frustrating. Career criminals are seldom jailed, and even if they are, they're soon back out, because keeping them inside is expensive. They don't pay their fines. Still, I don't think it is fair to concentrate on minor offenses by middle-class drivers just because it is possible for the state to collect more money from them.
Finally, yes: sometimes absent-minded people really forget to pay. That has happened to me a couple times over the 25 years that I've been driving. I did notice pretty soon, and turn back and pay, before the message reached the police.
5.8.2010
A suitable crime category will be devised.
Stalin is quoted to have said something like "There are no innocent people, only people who have not yet been investigated thoroughly enough." I don't know if Stalin ever really said that, but his regime certainly worked based on that principle to the maximum effect.
Now the police in Turku has started to work along the same lines: first they decided that an act is a crime, and then they applied a law paragraph that is the closest match, although it doesn't quite fit.
A man in Turku was fined and sentenced to lose his camera to the state for photographing women's fannies in a public place.
Some people found the man's behaviour creepy. That is understandable.
However, I find even creepier the fact that the police did not really know which law was being broken, so they used the Criminal Law Chapter 17 § 21, "indecent behaviour" to give fines and confiscate the man's camera. I don't quite see how taking photographs in a public place is indecent. The law text doesn't fit this act. Nor does the background work as published by the parliament. To the contrary, so far it's been a human right, and the Chancellor of Justice has repeatedly issued statements where he asserts that it is permitted to take photographs in public places - also when the subject of the photo (e.g. a guard at a mall) would not like to be photographed. (Publishing the photographs is a completely different matter, but here that wasn't the issue.)
Another thing then is that the journalist in HS are about as clueless as usual when they say things like "the police sentenced the man to lose his camera to the state". The police cannot sentence the man; it is up to a court of law. The police can issue a paper called "rangaistusvaatimus", effectively a statement of prosecution, to which you can plead guilty and agree to pay a fine, but that is not a sentence. Sentences only come out from courts.
There's a generic principle which has a fine Latin name, Nulla poena sine lege: there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of penal law as it existed at the time.
Although this is a marginal case, it's slightly worrying that the law is applied like this. The paragraph about "indecent behaviour" is meant to cover things like showing an unclothed fanny in a public place. It's not about photographing clothed fannies in a public place.
However, if we agree that photographing women's fannies in a public place really is indecent, the first one to be prosecuted shouldn't be a creep from Turku, but a journalist of Iltalehti whose main feature about the new prime minister in the country was her backside.
Now the police in Turku has started to work along the same lines: first they decided that an act is a crime, and then they applied a law paragraph that is the closest match, although it doesn't quite fit.
A man in Turku was fined and sentenced to lose his camera to the state for photographing women's fannies in a public place.
Some people found the man's behaviour creepy. That is understandable.
However, I find even creepier the fact that the police did not really know which law was being broken, so they used the Criminal Law Chapter 17 § 21, "indecent behaviour" to give fines and confiscate the man's camera. I don't quite see how taking photographs in a public place is indecent. The law text doesn't fit this act. Nor does the background work as published by the parliament. To the contrary, so far it's been a human right, and the Chancellor of Justice has repeatedly issued statements where he asserts that it is permitted to take photographs in public places - also when the subject of the photo (e.g. a guard at a mall) would not like to be photographed. (Publishing the photographs is a completely different matter, but here that wasn't the issue.)
Another thing then is that the journalist in HS are about as clueless as usual when they say things like "the police sentenced the man to lose his camera to the state". The police cannot sentence the man; it is up to a court of law. The police can issue a paper called "rangaistusvaatimus", effectively a statement of prosecution, to which you can plead guilty and agree to pay a fine, but that is not a sentence. Sentences only come out from courts.
There's a generic principle which has a fine Latin name, Nulla poena sine lege: there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of penal law as it existed at the time.
Although this is a marginal case, it's slightly worrying that the law is applied like this. The paragraph about "indecent behaviour" is meant to cover things like showing an unclothed fanny in a public place. It's not about photographing clothed fannies in a public place.
However, if we agree that photographing women's fannies in a public place really is indecent, the first one to be prosecuted shouldn't be a creep from Turku, but a journalist of Iltalehti whose main feature about the new prime minister in the country was her backside.
4.8.2010
Wearing nappies in prison
Previously, I was wondering how someone could get just four years of youth detention for a cruel, premeditated murder in Sweden. Here's the opposite story: a 78-year old man goes to prison for assaulting a police officer, although he is so frail that he moves with a walking frame and wears a nappy and a catether. The assault incident happened at a nursing home where the man was in a confused state.
Somehow it looks to me that a young heavy offender is given an astoundingly light sentence, and an old light offender is given a heavy sentence. Why?
Perhaps the young offender is so scary that the police, courts and witnesses are afraid of him. The old man, on the other hand, is no danger to anyone, so it is safe to lock him up in a prison for an act for which he is hardly responsible. He might require some duct tape treatment at the nursing home, of course, like children at Helsinki day care (though this appears to be a universal practise).
Somehow it looks to me that a young heavy offender is given an astoundingly light sentence, and an old light offender is given a heavy sentence. Why?
Perhaps the young offender is so scary that the police, courts and witnesses are afraid of him. The old man, on the other hand, is no danger to anyone, so it is safe to lock him up in a prison for an act for which he is hardly responsible. He might require some duct tape treatment at the nursing home, of course, like children at Helsinki day care (though this appears to be a universal practise).
15.7.2010
Sentences for capital crimes
There's been quite some discussion in Finland over the triple murder in Porvoo, where a person called Esa Åkerlund shot three people at a McDonald's drive-in queue. As usual, the fanatics like Pekka Sauri are advocating a ban on legal handguns when someone commits murder using an illegal one - just like with the case of Ibrahim Shkupolli half a year ago. The good thing is that the Ministry of Interior is not completely bollocks.
Many other people who have some common sense are, justifiedly, asking that how is this possible: a man is sentenced to life in prison for murdering his wife, then released and kills again so soon.
Before murdering his wife, Åkerlund was convicted of a manslaughter using a knife in a restaurant, but in the Kouvola court of appeals, the sentence was revoked. The technical evidence was compelling: it was Åkerlund's knife, and the victim's blood. But unsurprisingly, in the court of appeals there were new witnesses defending him, and the witnesses against him did not want to testify. The latter were obviously smart enough to figure out that the law offers them no protection, while a murdered can definitely reward them with death, and there is nothing that the police or courts are going to do about it before it happens.
So, 15 years after executing his wife, half a year after he was released, he has an illegal handgun duly supplied by pals, and he murders three other people over a petty argument concerning the horsepowers of a vintage American convertible car.
Why was he released? Why was he not followed up?
However, while we should be asking these questions, it seems that the sentencing in Finland is not nearly as bad as it could be. Compare it to this case in Sweden: http://www.thelocal.se/27768/20100713/
A man murders his sister's boyfriend as a so-called honour killing, using hot oil, knives and blunt instruments. And the sentence? Four years of youth detention. And no, he's not been deported back to Afghanistan.
The bad news is that as is the historical trend, we're probably heading towards the Swedish model.
But I have to type it again.
Four years of youth detention for a premiditated murder commited with hot oil, knives and blunt instruments.
Many other people who have some common sense are, justifiedly, asking that how is this possible: a man is sentenced to life in prison for murdering his wife, then released and kills again so soon.
Before murdering his wife, Åkerlund was convicted of a manslaughter using a knife in a restaurant, but in the Kouvola court of appeals, the sentence was revoked. The technical evidence was compelling: it was Åkerlund's knife, and the victim's blood. But unsurprisingly, in the court of appeals there were new witnesses defending him, and the witnesses against him did not want to testify. The latter were obviously smart enough to figure out that the law offers them no protection, while a murdered can definitely reward them with death, and there is nothing that the police or courts are going to do about it before it happens.
So, 15 years after executing his wife, half a year after he was released, he has an illegal handgun duly supplied by pals, and he murders three other people over a petty argument concerning the horsepowers of a vintage American convertible car.
Why was he released? Why was he not followed up?
However, while we should be asking these questions, it seems that the sentencing in Finland is not nearly as bad as it could be. Compare it to this case in Sweden: http://www.thelocal.se/27768/20100713/
A man murders his sister's boyfriend as a so-called honour killing, using hot oil, knives and blunt instruments. And the sentence? Four years of youth detention. And no, he's not been deported back to Afghanistan.
The bad news is that as is the historical trend, we're probably heading towards the Swedish model.
But I have to type it again.
Four years of youth detention for a premiditated murder commited with hot oil, knives and blunt instruments.
19.3.2010
Capital punishment
I don't generally think that capital punishment should be really implemented by actually killing the convicted criminal - I'd rather have the person locked up in jail for life.
However, in a few cases, actual execution looks justified. If a person is already sentenced to life in prison for rape and attempted murder, and then taunts the authorities and the relatives of victims calling them stupid and bragging he murdered the sister of the victim - believing he is protected by the American double jeopardy rule - it is very difficult to feel sympathy for the man^H^H^Hbeast when the state decides to put him down. He worked really, really hard to deserve it.
However, in a few cases, actual execution looks justified. If a person is already sentenced to life in prison for rape and attempted murder, and then taunts the authorities and the relatives of victims calling them stupid and bragging he murdered the sister of the victim - believing he is protected by the American double jeopardy rule - it is very difficult to feel sympathy for the man^H^H^Hbeast when the state decides to put him down. He worked really, really hard to deserve it.
10.3.2010
Identities, hide and seek
The British media is all nuts about the case of Jon Venables, who together with his friend Robert Thompson murdered a 2-year-old boy, James Bulger, in Merseyside in 1993. Venables was 10 years old at the time and was incarcerated until 2001. Now he's locked up again, for something "serious", allegedly child pornography.
Many people have expressed that they want capital punishment to be brought back, but I don't see how it would solve anything here. No civilized society can execute a 10-year-old criminal however awful he is, and whatever he has done - or an older boy for crimes committed at the age of 10, or an adult who has this background and has now committed some offence that normally carries a minor prison sentence. He may be damaged beyond repair, but the kind of death penalty I endorse is locking dangerous people up in a prison or a ward.
However, the case has implications. As the practice is in Britain, Venables and Thompson have been schooled while in the custody of officials, passed their exams, and been released on parole in early 2000's. A British peculiarity is that they have been taught to speak without the accent that would betray their locale and class background and thus possibly reveal who they are.
The boys have received new identities, complete with officially forged birth certificates and a clean criminal record. They have then tried to start new lives, while secretly being in touch with the parole officers - this makes sense, for who would expect someone to survive in a society, if he was neglected until 10 years old and imprisoned after that, and then suddenly released?
But there is a consequence. People are not happy that taxpayer money is used for protecting murderers, even murderers who were very young minors at the time. There are plenty of vigilantes who have little regard for organized society and who simply want to kill or maim Venables and Thompson. Naturally, this must not happen.
The arrangement with new identities leads to a phenomenon: people can't be sure that their new neighbour is who he says he is. Of course, in a country like Britain where people generally have no official identity papers anyway, this doesn't anyway work in the way it works in the Big-Brother Nordic societies like Finland, where "sans papiers" is just a plain impossibility, not to mention a legal resident who has no papers. But anyway, forged identities give a new twist to the issue.
People start to suspect that a new neighbour is the famous killer. They set up hate groups. They make threats. And as a result, a completely innocent person, who is of the right gender and age and approximate physical looks, will be haunted in real life, as well as in Facebook.
Or is he innocent? Could it be that he really is Venables, but the authorities are making up a story about Venables being in custody elsewhere? Since they can legally make up identities for people, can't they also protect these artificial identities by setting up a phoney imprisonment of someone who doesn't even exist?
This kind of secrecy and protection leads to conspiray theories and speculation.
It looks like it would be just better to face the facts. The killer's life was ruined when he committed a murder when he was 10 years old. Trying to protect him with a new identity seems to cause more mayhem to others. Perhaps it should be acknowledged that the boys' normal lives were over when they killed 2-year-old James Bulger, and no one else needs to be made vulnerable?
Many people have expressed that they want capital punishment to be brought back, but I don't see how it would solve anything here. No civilized society can execute a 10-year-old criminal however awful he is, and whatever he has done - or an older boy for crimes committed at the age of 10, or an adult who has this background and has now committed some offence that normally carries a minor prison sentence. He may be damaged beyond repair, but the kind of death penalty I endorse is locking dangerous people up in a prison or a ward.
However, the case has implications. As the practice is in Britain, Venables and Thompson have been schooled while in the custody of officials, passed their exams, and been released on parole in early 2000's. A British peculiarity is that they have been taught to speak without the accent that would betray their locale and class background and thus possibly reveal who they are.
The boys have received new identities, complete with officially forged birth certificates and a clean criminal record. They have then tried to start new lives, while secretly being in touch with the parole officers - this makes sense, for who would expect someone to survive in a society, if he was neglected until 10 years old and imprisoned after that, and then suddenly released?
But there is a consequence. People are not happy that taxpayer money is used for protecting murderers, even murderers who were very young minors at the time. There are plenty of vigilantes who have little regard for organized society and who simply want to kill or maim Venables and Thompson. Naturally, this must not happen.
The arrangement with new identities leads to a phenomenon: people can't be sure that their new neighbour is who he says he is. Of course, in a country like Britain where people generally have no official identity papers anyway, this doesn't anyway work in the way it works in the Big-Brother Nordic societies like Finland, where "sans papiers" is just a plain impossibility, not to mention a legal resident who has no papers. But anyway, forged identities give a new twist to the issue.
People start to suspect that a new neighbour is the famous killer. They set up hate groups. They make threats. And as a result, a completely innocent person, who is of the right gender and age and approximate physical looks, will be haunted in real life, as well as in Facebook.
Or is he innocent? Could it be that he really is Venables, but the authorities are making up a story about Venables being in custody elsewhere? Since they can legally make up identities for people, can't they also protect these artificial identities by setting up a phoney imprisonment of someone who doesn't even exist?
This kind of secrecy and protection leads to conspiray theories and speculation.
It looks like it would be just better to face the facts. The killer's life was ruined when he committed a murder when he was 10 years old. Trying to protect him with a new identity seems to cause more mayhem to others. Perhaps it should be acknowledged that the boys' normal lives were over when they killed 2-year-old James Bulger, and no one else needs to be made vulnerable?
11.2.2010
A scary ruling
The Finnish Supreme Court has given a ruling that would make my hair stand straight if it weren't already so short that I can't comb it: a drug trafficker used a rental car to transport stuff, so he has to pay the purchase price of the rental car to the state.
Excuse me? I'm not known for being particularly sympathetic to drug dealers, but even with severe crime, punishment should be within reason. 19 000 euros of extra punishment because the dealer happened to take his backpack with 2.8 kilos of amphetamine in a rental car?
What's next?
If you transport drugs in a bus, you have to pay the price of the bus to the state? If you carry the backpack on a Finnair flight to Oulu, and are caught, you need to compensate the state with the price of an MD-82? If you carry drugs on foot, you have to pay for the construction cost of each meter of pavement that you used?
Or is it just that private cars are somehow different from any other transport, and requirement for reasonable punishment does not apply?
This is a scary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Court. It cannot be right.
Excuse me? I'm not known for being particularly sympathetic to drug dealers, but even with severe crime, punishment should be within reason. 19 000 euros of extra punishment because the dealer happened to take his backpack with 2.8 kilos of amphetamine in a rental car?
What's next?
If you transport drugs in a bus, you have to pay the price of the bus to the state? If you carry the backpack on a Finnair flight to Oulu, and are caught, you need to compensate the state with the price of an MD-82? If you carry drugs on foot, you have to pay for the construction cost of each meter of pavement that you used?
Or is it just that private cars are somehow different from any other transport, and requirement for reasonable punishment does not apply?
This is a scary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Court. It cannot be right.
2.2.2010
Breaking a law to find out who broke law to find out who broke law...
The German government is pondering whether to purchase information about tax evaders - people who have money in Swiss banks but are not declaring nor paying tax for it in Germany - and pay 2,5 million € for the CD with personal information of some 1500 people. (Reported e.g. by Business Week.)
The interesting part here is that the information has been stolen by the person who tries to sell it. One would think that at least in common law countries (US, UK), using illegally obtained information would not stick in court so it couldn't be enforced - but on the other hand, even there, what does not stick in criminal justice system may still very well stick with the tax collector because for the state, tax revenue is a much more important thing than a due process as applied in courts of justice. Is it okay that a government purchases the proceeds of a crime, even if these proceeds can then be used to discover and prosecute other crimes?
And then an even more interesting question. Will the person who stole this information from a Swiss bank (apparently in Geneva) declare the purchase price in his/her personal income declaration? He/she is likely a Swiss resident.
If yes, the Swiss will have him/her; he or she could probably be prosecuted under some kind of data protection crime or at least misdemeanor, and proceeds of this crime could be confiscated.
If not, he'll be a tax evader and Swiss law enforcement should be entirely justified to require the person's details from the German government who is paying him/her. If the German government refuses, they are themselves protecting a tax evader. Hardly a justifiable position.
Perhaps someone could then sell the information to the Swiss? Whether that is a crime depends on the way the information was acquired, of course... we have a nice recursive crime.
The interesting part here is that the information has been stolen by the person who tries to sell it. One would think that at least in common law countries (US, UK), using illegally obtained information would not stick in court so it couldn't be enforced - but on the other hand, even there, what does not stick in criminal justice system may still very well stick with the tax collector because for the state, tax revenue is a much more important thing than a due process as applied in courts of justice. Is it okay that a government purchases the proceeds of a crime, even if these proceeds can then be used to discover and prosecute other crimes?
And then an even more interesting question. Will the person who stole this information from a Swiss bank (apparently in Geneva) declare the purchase price in his/her personal income declaration? He/she is likely a Swiss resident.
If yes, the Swiss will have him/her; he or she could probably be prosecuted under some kind of data protection crime or at least misdemeanor, and proceeds of this crime could be confiscated.
If not, he'll be a tax evader and Swiss law enforcement should be entirely justified to require the person's details from the German government who is paying him/her. If the German government refuses, they are themselves protecting a tax evader. Hardly a justifiable position.
Perhaps someone could then sell the information to the Swiss? Whether that is a crime depends on the way the information was acquired, of course... we have a nice recursive crime.
15.12.2009
Carbon and VAT carousel
Some fraud-prone industries, such as mobile phone trading or the construction industry, have or are going to have a reverse VAT charging scheme in many countries:
Helsingin Sanomat about construction industry VAT frauds frauds
Channel Register about mobile phone VAT frauds
Thus, consuming more fuel would collect more tax, in a foolproof way - instead of relying on rules and ratings and a car tax plus annual vehicle taxes that even the car shops cannot calculate reliably (thus, when you ask the price of a new car, you get an approximation because they can't tell the tax exactly!)
Helsingin Sanomat about construction industry VAT frauds frauds
Channel Register about mobile phone VAT frauds
Now it looks like carbon emission trading is among the very same group of fraud-prone industries, and perhaps even more so:
However, even this VAT reversal doesn't make the fundaments right: emission trading is - particularly in the way it is set up - a pretty dim idea. A simple tax on whatever emissions are deemed harmful would be better, and wouldn't be a simple license to print money for whoever was blowing most CO2 into the atmosphere at a certain moment way back in past.
Likewise, Finland has a rather idiotic scheme regarding the taxation of carbon emissions from vehicle fuel: cars with higher nominal emission ratings have a higher tax percentage. But this system is complex and produces unpredictable results. A simpler and more fair approach would be to just tax the fuels (and not just car fuels, but any fossil fuels - the atmosphere, if it cares about carbon at all, doesn't really know where the carbon came from, right?)
Thus, consuming more fuel would collect more tax, in a foolproof way - instead of relying on rules and ratings and a car tax plus annual vehicle taxes that even the car shops cannot calculate reliably (thus, when you ask the price of a new car, you get an approximation because they can't tell the tax exactly!)
12.12.2009
Partnering processes in the underworld
According to our national broadcaster and largest newspaper, there's a new business model in the underworld: someone makes a plan and all the preparations for an armed robbery, but then doesn't execute it. Instead, the plan is sold to someone for execution. The planning party then just collects a commission if the robbery was successful.
Why does someone do the tedious and boring planning, but then lets the actual robbery part for someone else, along with much or most of the profits?
To quote Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo: because it makes good business sense. When you create a robbery plan, you have to attract police attention; if you sell the plan instead of conducting the robbery yourself, an independent agent can execute the plan more safely, while you don't have to take any risks. Work safety first!
In the course of preparation for a major robbery - such as releaving a money transportation company of their heavy burden - you enquire for information and obtain equipment like guns, uniforms (for posing as an employee), explosives (for blowing up things or threatening people), and other stuff. Some of this is difficult to purchase or risky to steal. You may possibly have to bribe some insiders, do rehearsal runs, etc. All this will rise some eyebrows and people will call the police about suspicious activity. The authorities are likely to be tailing you by the time your plan is ready for execution.
But they will not arrest you for the rehearsal rounds, because planning and preparation for a robbery is not an offence in Finland; only an attempt is. And as a recent Finnish court precedent tells us, even a premeditated attempt doesn't count if you abort it when you see the police on your way to the target site.
If some of the equipment you obtain - such as guns - is illegal, they could bust you for that. But the punishment for possessing firearms with intent for violent crime is not really different from any gun possession offence, and will only get you a fine, which is a very minor sum of money if you don't have any taxable income. And since you generally don't pay tax for proceeds of crime, the fines are not a very big threat for professional criminals. So the police will rather wait that they could get you for the real crime you're planning - but they have to get you indisputably in the act, not just staging for it.
Enter the independent party who executes your plan. When your roadmap to money is done, you do a contract with the execution team. They conduct a review of the plan an adjust it according to their taste. Once the date is set, you get a good alibi - or preferably go out of the country - and let the execution team do their part. If they are successful, you get your commission. Like yuor share of the 1.5 million euros that they got from Turku robbery, none of which has been got back.
I call this business thinking. Enterprise world is familiar with this approach - partnering, outsourcing, off/near-shoring, risk management and profit sharing - but if e.g. our public sector could learn from the process capabilities of our more competent criminals, we'd be much better off.
The guys who did the Turku and Lieto heists were rather successful and they have demonstrated good, creative out-of-the-box thinking, and they have shown their capability of adapting to the environment. Could for instance the City of Helsinki hire them to redesign the budget cuts that Mr. Pajunen has been calling for?
Why does someone do the tedious and boring planning, but then lets the actual robbery part for someone else, along with much or most of the profits?
To quote Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo: because it makes good business sense. When you create a robbery plan, you have to attract police attention; if you sell the plan instead of conducting the robbery yourself, an independent agent can execute the plan more safely, while you don't have to take any risks. Work safety first!
In the course of preparation for a major robbery - such as releaving a money transportation company of their heavy burden - you enquire for information and obtain equipment like guns, uniforms (for posing as an employee), explosives (for blowing up things or threatening people), and other stuff. Some of this is difficult to purchase or risky to steal. You may possibly have to bribe some insiders, do rehearsal runs, etc. All this will rise some eyebrows and people will call the police about suspicious activity. The authorities are likely to be tailing you by the time your plan is ready for execution.
But they will not arrest you for the rehearsal rounds, because planning and preparation for a robbery is not an offence in Finland; only an attempt is. And as a recent Finnish court precedent tells us, even a premeditated attempt doesn't count if you abort it when you see the police on your way to the target site.
If some of the equipment you obtain - such as guns - is illegal, they could bust you for that. But the punishment for possessing firearms with intent for violent crime is not really different from any gun possession offence, and will only get you a fine, which is a very minor sum of money if you don't have any taxable income. And since you generally don't pay tax for proceeds of crime, the fines are not a very big threat for professional criminals. So the police will rather wait that they could get you for the real crime you're planning - but they have to get you indisputably in the act, not just staging for it.
Enter the independent party who executes your plan. When your roadmap to money is done, you do a contract with the execution team. They conduct a review of the plan an adjust it according to their taste. Once the date is set, you get a good alibi - or preferably go out of the country - and let the execution team do their part. If they are successful, you get your commission. Like yuor share of the 1.5 million euros that they got from Turku robbery, none of which has been got back.
I call this business thinking. Enterprise world is familiar with this approach - partnering, outsourcing, off/near-shoring, risk management and profit sharing - but if e.g. our public sector could learn from the process capabilities of our more competent criminals, we'd be much better off.
The guys who did the Turku and Lieto heists were rather successful and they have demonstrated good, creative out-of-the-box thinking, and they have shown their capability of adapting to the environment. Could for instance the City of Helsinki hire them to redesign the budget cuts that Mr. Pajunen has been calling for?
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)