Big mistake
One of the things that made me invest in photography was a bird. Let me rephrase that. I wanted to capture a picture of a bird but it was hopping around on a tree trunk which made it difficult to capture with my smartphone. At that point, the fact that I needed a better camera was impressed on me.
The bird was a Common Goldenback/Flameback woodpecker.
You can imagine my joy when I spotted the same species of bird a year later and manage to capture it on film. A few months ago, something caught my eye and I snapped a picture of it. I thought that the woodpecker looked a little sick as its red top appeared to be moulting or some skin disease. The feathers on the body looked a different shade but I felt it was likely to be related to its skin problem.
The Ornithologist among the readers would have recognised my mistake and correctly identified the bird as a Laced Woodpecker. I am assuming that I am fairly well educated as well as having a strong interest in Science so my bird identification should be correct. But I guess that I have a lot to learn.
Most of us also have the same problem. We assume that we know the facts, read a few books or are fans of a few TV series and we can be trusted to decide on who is guilty or even how to punish them. Being a vigilante looks good as it cut out a lot of middleman and potential for loopholes. I am fine with people having an opinion but I am concern with people taking direct action to find and punish others. Even baying blood is a serious problem when enough people are doing as it affects others. It is reasonable to take indirect action like informing the police of certain facts but beyond that I am concern with the haste to remove "due process".
Let me now state my concern about simplistic solutions towards crime. Recently a man was killed in the Philippines. He was suspected to be a drug pusher as he died with a cardboard stating his crime. Now there is a problem as nobody know who killed him or the justification for doing so. There is a reason why policemen have to file reports. Policemen have to go through the proper channels like search warrants and accounting for shot fired or prisoners taken. To a vigilante, the only cost is a wasted bullet. He or she may not be aware they have killed the wrong person. Which part timing vigilante would be interested to improve his or her criminal detection method? I am even more concern if the vigilante was a law enforcer. Now all cold cases and vendettas can be easily resolved by writing on the cardboard a crime and putting it on a dead person. One other thing about using the bullet to solve crime is that it can ricochet or travel a long distance or even punch through doors or walls.
It is highly dubious that shooting all drug dealers solve Philippines drug problem. First, shooting a drug dealer will encourage existing drug dealers to be more creative. They certainly will be less open about their business but they will not stop their business. The drug dealers may also choose to be more violent which is what is happening in certain South American countries. There is also the anonymous route. Drug purchases can easily move online. Drug deliveries can be done by drones. Or by unsuspecting drug mules.
Drug users will also change their drugs to a DIY version. Once this happens, suppliers of DIY drug components will be "encouraged" to facilitate the sales of the raw material by "educating" the drug users and make it easy to purchase small quantities of the raw material. Clamping down on all the raw materials will not be easy.
In conclusion, crimes are not solved by putting a trigger. Trigger happy solution will encourage only autonomous militia. Or armed mobs. Or massed armed lone-wolfs. Which will in turn, be a problem when you need to disarm them. Drug addiction is a problem. Gun addiction is not its solution.
"All sins tend to be addictive, and the terminal point of addiction is damnation." W. H. Auden
Update:
Now I am not trying to turn the topic into an ITYS. But it seems that the anti-drug unit shot an innocent South Korean businessman using a drug arrest as a cover. The Philippine President then halted the anti-drug movement to weed out the criminals in the police. Of course, his offer of putting a bounty on the heads of the crooked police, in my opinion, is just going to make matters worse.
The bird was a Common Goldenback/Flameback woodpecker.
 |
| Fly away little Paraquayo ..... |
 |
| Isn't it ironic ...... |
Most of us also have the same problem. We assume that we know the facts, read a few books or are fans of a few TV series and we can be trusted to decide on who is guilty or even how to punish them. Being a vigilante looks good as it cut out a lot of middleman and potential for loopholes. I am fine with people having an opinion but I am concern with people taking direct action to find and punish others. Even baying blood is a serious problem when enough people are doing as it affects others. It is reasonable to take indirect action like informing the police of certain facts but beyond that I am concern with the haste to remove "due process".
Let me now state my concern about simplistic solutions towards crime. Recently a man was killed in the Philippines. He was suspected to be a drug pusher as he died with a cardboard stating his crime. Now there is a problem as nobody know who killed him or the justification for doing so. There is a reason why policemen have to file reports. Policemen have to go through the proper channels like search warrants and accounting for shot fired or prisoners taken. To a vigilante, the only cost is a wasted bullet. He or she may not be aware they have killed the wrong person. Which part timing vigilante would be interested to improve his or her criminal detection method? I am even more concern if the vigilante was a law enforcer. Now all cold cases and vendettas can be easily resolved by writing on the cardboard a crime and putting it on a dead person. One other thing about using the bullet to solve crime is that it can ricochet or travel a long distance or even punch through doors or walls.
It is highly dubious that shooting all drug dealers solve Philippines drug problem. First, shooting a drug dealer will encourage existing drug dealers to be more creative. They certainly will be less open about their business but they will not stop their business. The drug dealers may also choose to be more violent which is what is happening in certain South American countries. There is also the anonymous route. Drug purchases can easily move online. Drug deliveries can be done by drones. Or by unsuspecting drug mules.
In conclusion, crimes are not solved by putting a trigger. Trigger happy solution will encourage only autonomous militia. Or armed mobs. Or massed armed lone-wolfs. Which will in turn, be a problem when you need to disarm them. Drug addiction is a problem. Gun addiction is not its solution.
"All sins tend to be addictive, and the terminal point of addiction is damnation." W. H. Auden
Update:
Now I am not trying to turn the topic into an ITYS. But it seems that the anti-drug unit shot an innocent South Korean businessman using a drug arrest as a cover. The Philippine President then halted the anti-drug movement to weed out the criminals in the police. Of course, his offer of putting a bounty on the heads of the crooked police, in my opinion, is just going to make matters worse.
Comments
Post a Comment