1 August 2008, 12:44 in

James Duane: Don't Talk to the Police

James Duane, a US law professor, explains why innocent people should never talk to the police. The video goes for 28 minutes.

Duane recommends that lawyers always advise their clients are always advised to exercise their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He cites the following main reasons:

  1. There is no way it can help.
  2. If your client is guilty – and even if he is innocent – he may admit his guilt with no benefit in return.
  3. Even if your client is innocent and denies his guilt and mostly tells the truth, he can easily get carried away and tell some little lie or make some little mistake that will hang him.
  4. Even if your client is innocent and only tell the truth, he will always give the police some information that can be used to help convict.
  5. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating, there is still a grave chance that his answers can be used to crucify him if the police don’t recall his testimony with 100% accuracy.
  6. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating, and his statement is videotaped, his answers can be used to crucify him if the police don’t recall the questions with 100% accuracy.
  7. Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and does not tell the police anything incriminating, and the entire interview is videotaped, his answers can be used to crucify him if the police have any evidence, even mistaken or unreliable evidence, that any of his statements are false.

This applies to US law but is still interesting nonetheless. I wonder if the same logic applies here in Australia?

Comments [1]

14 December 2007, 09:41 in

Some ideas on minimum wage

I recently came across a blog post on minimum wage on the Thoughts On Freedom blog, which argues that the concept of the minimum wage actually disadvantages the poor more than it helps them.

Some quotes:

Imagine you are an entrepreneur. As a businessperson, would you start a venture where you were forced to pay workers $100 an hour, a rate which is well beyond what you could earn from them? No — you wouldn’t open a new enterprise if you were guaranteed a loss. Therefore, the only businesses that will thrive under such conditions are those which are sure to recover the cost of labour plus the cost of capital, and also compensate themselves for the enormous risk of opening a business in the first place. This argument, which is persuasive with a $100 per hour wage rate, can be repeated incrementally down the ladder.

And:

The minimum wage would not be such an issue if it weren’t for politicians who have capitalised on the general public’s perception that wage controls protect the poor from exploitation. But if the poor are in trouble, what is required is to upgrade their skills, and to shift their supply to sectors where market demand is growing. This is not an instantaneous process, and it is important that a social welfare system offer temporary relief in the interim. But it is wrong to penalise small businesses by placing on them the burden of making unskilled workers wealthier than the market will support. Why kill the hen (entrepreneur) that lays the golden egg (of jobs)?

There are many interesting comments on the article. Terje thinks that raising the tax free threshold would be of more benefit than increasing the the minimum wage:

A worker on $14 per hour in a full time job earns well above the tax free threshold and their financial position could be readily enhanced by a tax cut. And yet trade unions seem to spend a very much larger amount of time lobbying government for a higher minimum wage than they ever spend lobbying government for a higher tax free threshold. A higher tax free threshold would improve the financial position of low income workers whilst have no negative effect on their employment prospects.

Makes sense.

Comments

12 December 2007, 12:35 in

Australian federal election 2007

Australia recently had its 2007 federal election. You have probably heard that Labor won, and fairly convincingly too. It was a highly polarised election with the large majority of the votes going to the big two parties (Labor and Liberal), and the minor parties not getting many votes.

Election results are available here. More information is available at ABC News, Google, and The Australian.

I believe one reason that the election was so polarised is that many people believe that if they don’t vote for one of the big two, they are throwing their vote away. We have a fairly complex voting system and it would be nice if there had been some more effort made to educate people about it, especially when you consider the huge amounts of money being spent on advertising.

The AEC does have some info on how to vote for the Senate and for the House of Representatives. Also see the Wikipedia entries on Politics of Australia, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

I was a bit appalled at some of the name calling, fear tactics, personal attacks, and so on, that the major parties used in their election campaigns. Instead of focusing on explaining their own policies, it seems most of the effort was put into discrediting the opposition and creating fear.

One Liberal Coalition brochure made me particularly angry. The brochure was trying to show that the Liberals were better at managing money and it did this by comparing various figures, such as average wages, interest rates, and so on, for when Liberals and Labor were in power. The problem was that they were using data from ten to twenty years ago for Labor and comparing it to very recent data for the Liberals, and then jumping to conclusions. Wow, wages have increased since the 80s… Well duh, inflation alone would see to that! There was a global recession in the 80s, so yes interest rates were higher then. Obviously it is not fair to simply compare figures from different times side by side like that. A little too keen to take credit for anything good that happened during their term while also pointing out anything bad that happened during the opposition’s term. Again just a shameless attempt at getting votes from stupid people who don’t understand the issues. I find it offensive that they dare publish this kind of crap. [Please note that I am not anti-Liberal or pro-Labor; I am merely using this as an example.]

I guess I was a bit surprised at how low the parties are prepared to stoop to get votes. Why do political parties get away with behaviour that would be condemned if it were perpetrated by an individual?

Comments

17 October 2007, 00:00 in

Lawyers push for Australian bill of rights

From an ABC News article:

Human Rights lawyer Julian Burnside QC says the threat of terrorism has been used to curtail basic human rights.

“I think Australians have sacrificed a wide range of freedoms, apparently for security, and most Australians have no idea what rights have been taken away,” he said.

“Its now possible in Australia for a person to be jailed without a trial, for them to be jailed without knowing the evidence which has been used against them.”

Alliance chief executive Eva Scheerlinck says Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have a bill of rights.

Also see this article by John Kilcullen of Macquarie University.

To many it seems better to keep the courts free of politics and leave rights issues to the ordinary political process, in which politicians can be held responsible by the electorate — on this view the best safeguard of basic rights is the political culture of a democratic country. However, this does not protect very well the interests of any group or groups who are regularly in a minority (e.g. racial or religious groups). The main argument in favour of a constitutional Bill of Rights is that it will protect the rights of minorities more effectively than the democratic process will. On the other hand (and this was one of Madison’s original objections), people hostile to some minority will try to restrict and narrow the definition of rights when the Bill of Rights is being drawn up — and the more explicit the definitions the narrower they are likely to be.

Interesting stuff. I am not very knowledgeable about politics, but the more I learn the more things bother me.

Comments

27 September 2007, 16:26 in

Cage fighting should not be banned

There is a King Of The Cage fighting tournament scheduled to be held in Perth in October this year. For some reason, this has caused some uproar and the Australian government has recently been trying to ban the sport of cage fighting. Some news articles on the issue are here, here, here, and here.

In short, I believe that cage fighting should not be banned.

I am appalled and angry at the government for attempting to ban cage fighting. Every criticism of the sport that I have heard has either been completely ignorant, or at the least hypocritical or inconsistent with other sports. What we have here is politicians and other people who are completely ignorant of the sport looking at a few photos or viewing a short video clip and making a knee-jerk reaction.

For a start, cage fighting is not a sport in itself, and competitors don’t usually call themselves cage fighters. Cage fighting is simply a mixed martial arts fight held in a cage rather than the traditional boxing ring. Mixed martial arts competitions in normal boxing rings have been running here for a long time. Why is a huge fuss being made now just because the same event is now going to take place in a cage arena? Two fighters I talked to believe that the cage is actually safer than a boxing ring, because when grappling/wrestling is involved it’s quite easy to fall out of a ring or get tangled in the ropes.

Politicians and the media seem to make out mixed martial arts competitions as a blood bath, involving two unskilled brutes trying to kill each other. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. All the people that I know personally who have competed in or intend to compete in MMA fights or similar tournaments are generally very down-to-earth, respectful, hardworking, and relaxed individuals. They have nothing to prove, and don’t go starting fights in public.

The violent idiots that just want to hurt someone never get very far in training. Generally they show up to a training session or two and never again, because they realise what is involved. Becoming good at any serious combative sport involves being humble, keeping an open mind, acknowledging that there are people out there much better than you, learning from defeat or failure, working your butt off, and being persistent. The biggest battles you fight are internal battles within yourself. From what I have seen, at least at the amateur level, there is generally a high level of sportsmanship between competitors (in contrast to what we usually see in AFL matches).

One commonly used argument against violent sports is “we don’t want to condone violence, we are a civilised society”. I hate this argument. Allowing fighting tournaments to take place does not condone violence. It does not send out the message that it is OK to be violent at home or at a nightclub. Two consenting adults challenging each other on fair terms with rules in place is quite far removed from a bunch of idiots assaulting someone outside a nightclub.

I believe that, just like any other animal, we humans have some natural aggression in us, and this is OK and not something to be embarrassed of. We need to be able to let this aggression out in a controlled manner. Labeling all forms and expressions of our natural physical aggression as being undesirable and taboo is just plain unhealthy. I am a fairly highly strung person, but after a good hard training session I feel relaxed and content (and a little less bothered by the stupid drivers going slow in the right lane on the freeway).

People are different. Everyone has different standards for what is too violent or too brutal. Some people would say that any contact sport like AFL or rugby is too violent. Others would disagree. It is a personal thing and everyone should be allowed to make their own choice. No one is being forced to watch or participate in something they don’t like.

Another argument often used against cage fighting is that it is unsafe. I disagree. Sure, it is has some risks associated with it, and accidents can happen, but I don’t think it is any more dangerous than many other sports such as football, rugby, boxing and so on. While maybe they aren’t as violent in nature, fast paced physical ball sports such as rugby or football seem like they would have a higher chance of serious injury because there are multiple people on the field at one time, there is lots of space and people are running at each other at high speed, there is only one referee who can’t be looking everywhere at once, and it is quite probable that you will be hit or tackled or run into by someone you didn’t see and weren’t able to brace yourself for. A mixed martial arts bout is more closely refereed, with one referee per two fighters. Fights usually only take place between two opponents of similar skill or experience, and similar weight. As soon as one of the fighters is unable to intelligently defend themselves, or when they voluntarily submit (give up), the fight is ended.

At first glance, boxing may appear to be safer than mixed martial arts, due to the bigger gloves, and more restrictive rules (no kicks, no grappling, no knees, etc). However, I believe these restrictions actually make it more brutal. In boxing you have no choice but to trade punches with your opponent, and as a result boxers get frequently punched in the head. On the other hand, mixed martial arts is a more flexible game where you have other options; there is grappling and ground fighting and it is possible to finish a fight by submission (which causes the opponent no damage provided they tap out). From what I know, mixed martial arts has a good safety track record with few serious injuries or deaths.

From the article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

The AMA says cage fighting is dangerous and puts contestants’ lives at risk.

You could substitute just about any activity (e.g. driving a car, riding a bike, playing football) in place of the words cage fighting in the above phrase and it would still be true. The AMA would probably like to ban just about anything else that has some tiny element of risk associated with it. Doctors aren’t experts on everything, and their advice has to be taken in context. Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for doctors and some of my close friends are doctors. Doctors are great at helping sick or injured people recover and lead a normal life. However they are generally not experts on helping an already healthy person become a better, faster, stronger athlete. I believe that because doctors tend to deal with people who have something wrong with them, they tend to have a skewed point of view. Some time ago, I hurt my back and went to see a doctor hoping for a detailed diagnosis on what happened, and advice on what I could do to prevent the same thing from happening in the future (e.g increase my flexibility, strengthen certain muscles, warm up differently, etc). Instead the doctor’s advice was that I should never lift weights again, and just do light jogging instead. Talk about a defeatist attitude, and legally covering your ass!

One thing that really pisses me off is people who believe that they have the right to tell other people what to do. As long as no one is being harmed or having their property damaged against their will, let people do what they want. I’m sick of living in a dumbed down idiot-proof world, where everything is covered in warning labels, no one takes responsibility for their actions, people expect compensation for their own stupidity or bad luck, every piece of information comes with a disclaimer, and anything that is remotely dangerous or doesn’t fit in with the current politically correct flavour of the month gets banned.

Obviously mixed martial arts is not a sport for everyone. Some people prefer football or cricket or tennis or chess. We are all different and that’s fine and good! All I ask is that if you don’t like a sport or activity, then feel free not to to watch or participate in it, but don’t ruin it for other people that do!

I would love to hear anyone else’s opinion on this matter, or feedback on what I have written.

Comments

18 August 2007, 13:01 in

Christopher Hitchens talk on free speech

A while back I came across this video of Christopher Hitchens giving a talk at a debate on free speech in Canada:

Hitchens argues that religion is the main source of hatred in the world today, and yet at the same time also the main caller for censorship. He believes that free speech includes hate speech, i.e. he believes in decriminalizing hate speech.

Some quotes on free speech:

“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

“He wrote something stupid, a bunch of words that say something we don’t agree with. It’s only words and ideas, it’s not like he beat someone up, he’s not committing violence or hurting people, he’s simply saying something offensive that we do not want to hear because we don’t like it. If we suppress ideas we don’t like, the proponents of those ideas will probably fester in secret societies and explode in double-plus ungood ways and we will like those results even less. If we allow people to see their ideas, and we ignore them, they’ve had their chance and they don’t have to feel cheated about not getting exposure. Or if we really don’t like their ideas and really need to keep them from convincing other people to believe in them, the answer is to tell people why and they’ll learn. But you can’t just beat people up because you dislike their stupid opinion. If we go that route, then anyone who is willing to use force can suppress any opinion they don’t like, and maybe support opinions we don’t like. Then what you get is a society of brutality where it isn’t the best ideas that are seen by others, it’s only the ideas that have the most vicious thugs to back them up. And it becomes very hard for people to be willing to express any opinion if someone can just pop them one because they say something someone else doesn’t like.” – Supervisor 246 in Paul Robinson’s Instrument of God.

It seems that while hate speech is illegal in some countries, such as Australia and the US, it passes under the radar when masqueraded under the banner of religion. Enforcement should at least be made consistent.

I haven’t decided where I stand on free speech; both sides have some pros and cons. It is an interesting topic to think about.

Comments

21 May 2007, 23:00 in

Pat Condell: videos on religion

I recently came across a bunch of videos on religion by British comedian and atheist Pat Condell. I agree with a lot of his views, and he manages to be quite funny about it too, although he will definitely offend a lot of people.

Absolute certainty

What have I got against religion?

Religion in the UK – how much respect is enough?

More here.

Comments [3]

15 March 2007, 03:26 in

Why won't God heal amputees?

Spinboy’s recent posts (here and here) on religion reminded of a great website I found last year called Why Won’t God Heal Amputees. Despite the slightly abrasive title, it seems quite objective:

If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put “In God We Trust” on the money, pray in our schools and eliminate the theory of evolution from every curriculum. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.

On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. We should eliminate God from our society because God is meaningless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be completely delusional.

I haven’t read it all, but, from what I have seen, the writing is clear and concise, and I think it effectively argues that religious people are delusional. I particularly like the section entitled Understanding Delusion. Check it out.

It is good to see people critically analysing and questioning religion, despite it being somewhat of a taboo topic in our society.

Comments [2]