StarGateWars Forums

Such as traffic networks (drugs, weapons, counterfeit goods...) is for the justice to seize their goods (investments, cars, bank accounts), because jail alone is often seen as a reputation booster for them and they would always find someone to replace them (even if less "competent" they would find someone to carry on the 'biz'). On the other hand, seize their goods and there, you really cut the grass. Jail must therefore be coupled with seizing.
Now our police has some ultrasport cars in their garage seized off criminals and is able with money seized off them improve infrastructures to enhance the fight against criminality. That is if the silly new government doesn't want to remove it out of ideological nonsense...

That or flamethrowers?

Field Marshall wrote:That or flamethrowers?

Sure Judge Dreddism is another -though not so realistic and expectable- way but it doesn't mean seizing couldn't be coupled with that too lol.

Legendary Apophis wrote:Such as traffic networks (drugs, weapons, counterfeit goods...) is for the justice to seize their goods (investments, cars, bank accounts), because jail alone is often seen as a reputation booster for them and they would always find someone to replace them (even if less "competent" they would find someone to carry on the 'biz'). On the other hand, seize their goods and there, you really cut the grass. Jail must therefore be coupled with seizing.
Now our police has some ultrasport cars in their garage seized off criminals and is able with money seized off them improve infrastructures to enhance the fight against criminality. That is if the silly new government doesn't want to remove it out of ideological nonsense...

your judgment comes from a simple mind think how to fight an enemy that in fact is product of a sick society.
Did u know that in the major countries of EU/US jails are owned by privates???? It is a business nowadays.
Take a look at Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie. There's a section that talks about criminality and how to fight it in the proper manners.

have a good look i bet u ll like it.

Lithium wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Such as traffic networks (drugs, weapons, counterfeit goods...) is for the justice to seize their goods (investments, cars, bank accounts), because jail alone is often seen as a reputation booster for them and they would always find someone to replace them (even if less "competent" they would find someone to carry on the 'biz'). On the other hand, seize their goods and there, you really cut the grass. Jail must therefore be coupled with seizing.
Now our police has some ultrasport cars in their garage seized off criminals and is able with money seized off them improve infrastructures to enhance the fight against criminality. That is if the silly new government doesn't want to remove it out of ideological nonsense...

your judgment comes from a simple mind think how to fight an enemy that in fact is product of a sick society.
Did u know that in the major countries of EU/US jails are owned by privates???? It is a business nowadays.
Take a look at Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie. There's a section that talks about criminality and how to fight it in the proper manners.

have a good look i bet u ll like it.

The "judgment from a simple mind" you talk about I take this theory from is an experienced criminologist, director of research at one of our finest Law universities..
In fact, this seizing measure is currently in place thanks to previous government and is doing quite well to cut the grass below criminal networks.

Sarkozy might have been an arrogant bobble-head, but at least he had style.
This new dude.. what is up with him? Was he dropped on his head repeatedly as a kid?

Also agreed; taking the funding and resources of organised crime is a good way to cripple them; but you need to take a hell of a lot more than the things you can prove they took, or they will just replenish their resources with their next shipment/heist/kidnapping/.. you name it.

Juliette wrote:Sarkozy might have been an arrogant bobble-head, but at least he had style.
This new dude.. what is up with him? Was he dropped on his head repeatedly as a kid?

I don't know, he grew in a conservative-catholic-upper class family and decided to rebel against it and go towards the opposite environment, left wing politically correct dreamers; he thinks that crime can be fought with discussing, associations "cultural" stuff and other lax liberal ideas. Crime, according to his party, is caused by poverty, stigmatize by society and difficult childhood. Typical "blame it on the society not on the individual/neighbor relatives/sub-culture" stuff. Totally out of reality ideology in short!

Also agreed; taking the funding and resources of organised crime is a good way to cripple them; but you need to take a hell of a lot more than the things you can prove they took, or they will just replenish their resources with their next shipment/heist/kidnapping/.. you name it.

Of course, that's why a very deep and long investigation is needed beforehand in every affair. It also has the advantage to make such deep investigation worth it.

We already have such laws in the UK, no idea how long we are meant to wait before we see a dent in the crime rates i can't remember when it started but i do remember a big ad campaign by the Govt a few years back that the police now had the powers to seize assets gained/bought/stolen with money made from criminal enterprises...of course, most of those are drug related...and if drugs were at the very least decriminalised it would drive out the criminal element in drugs....that will never happen for reasons i have stated MANY times already.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:We already have such laws in the UK, no idea how long we are meant to wait before we see a dent in the crime rates i can't remember when it started but i do remember a big ad campaign by the Govt a few years back that the police now had the powers to seize assets gained/bought/stolen with money made from criminal enterprises...of course, most of those are drug related...and if drugs were at the very least decriminalised it would drive out the criminal element in drugs....that will never happen for reasons i have stated MANY times already.

This MUSTN'T happen for the simple reason that criminals if they lose a market, they will NOT apply for a "normal job", they will just move to another "crime market". How many times will we, the against decriminalisation people, have to repeat that?
Cigarettes are not forbidden, and yet, you see all the underworld trafficking with counterfeit cigarettes going on in Europe. The argument "but these drugs if legalized would bring taxes to the state", I will point the example of cigarettes trafficking.

I am strongly and firmly totally opposed to ANY form of decriminalization/legalization of drugs. I will vote against any party who would propose it and participate in online/real campaigns against it, the best I could.

You can not stop organized crime, bar none.

Want to put an end to it? Or at least severely cripple the operations? End Prohibition. (Drugs). Without the massive multibillion dollar drug markets, it leaves organised crime with MUCH less business to be taken care of, and might hurt them well enough that other crime ventures won't make them enough money in the long run to be worth it. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you have laws.. You'll have organised crime. No amount of seizing or jail time is going to stop these criminals as a new one will just take the last's place. It's all far too lucrative.

And Jim, your example of Cigarette trafficking is horrible. In Canada, Cigarettes are taxed to the nines, ~10$ for a pack of 25. "Black Market" cigarettes run for about 5$/pack and usually come off native reserves where the cigarettes are not taxed the same. You don't see crime bosses digging into the tobacco market, because it is not nearly lucrative enough. It's usually youth trying to make a little bit of extra money on the side, or the natives from said reserves doing the same. While this activity is technically illegal, you don't see big "tobacco" busts where weapons and ammunitions are seized. You can not scale them on the same chart as they are completely different business.

Drugs - Usually peddled by Organised criminals.
Tobacco - Usually peddled by minor criminals, or your average joe.

Z E R O wrote:You can not stop organized crime, bar none.

Want to put an end to it? Or at least severely cripple the operations? End Prohibition. (Drugs). Without the massive multibillion dollar drug markets, it leaves organised crime with MUCH less business to be taken care of, and might hurt them well enough that other crime ventures won't make them enough money in the long run to be worth it. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you have laws.. You'll have organised crime. No amount of seizing or jail time is going to stop these criminals as a new one will just take the last's place. It's all far too lucrative.

Give up to criminals in the hope they will not move to another market, which they will. That's such a despair and ineffective move. "You cannot stop organized crime", that's typically with said comments that you enable said organizations to prosper. Of course they will find other things, and anyway you are wrong with End Prohibition. In the Netherlands, according to documented sources I found, most of the drugs legal market is background-controlled by mafias, because one shouldn't be naive enough to believe mafias aren't involved as well in "legal" stuff. Real estate is one of them, legalized drugs is another. It just adds another "cover" for them to operate without being bothered. However, the effort Dutch government is doing by limiting the access to x numbers of consumers per coffee shop and restrict it to dutch people only, is meant to slow down the "drug tourism" where foreigners come, buy and bring back to their country and then sell it at rather cheap price. That's at least that done to try to limit all the mess legalizing drugs caused especially for nearby nations.

Seizing coupled with strict-and-long term jailing are the best way to fight organized crime. Otherwise, why would these RIP Italian judges were assassinated in the 90s and 2000s by organized crime, if fighting the crime legally with laws and jail wasn't effective?

And Jim, your example of Cigarette trafficking is horrible. In Canada, Cigarettes are taxed to the nines, ~10$ for a pack of 25. "Black Market" cigarettes run for about 5$/pack and usually come off native reserves where the cigarettes are not taxed the same. You don't see crime bosses digging into the tobacco market, because it is not nearly lucrative enough. It's usually youth trying to make a little bit of extra money on the side, or the natives from said reserves doing the same. While this activity is technically illegal, you don't see big "tobacco" busts where weapons and ammunitions are seized. You can not scale them on the same chart as they are completely different business.

You don't live in Europe....that might not be the case in Canada, but that's how it is in Europe, tons of counterfeit cigarettes coming from the East or other countries sold by organized crime networks, it's quite the same as who's behind your local "fake Gucci cap/belt" seller, behind it organized crime, children labor and other similar things. So yes, my example is perfectly fitting.

I'm not saying Ending drug prohibition would END organised crime. It would HURT organised crime. Like I said, it's not something you can end. As long as there are laws, there are people who be willing to break them to make a buck.

Legalizing + Taxing and regulating drug markets sets a price on something that currently has no official value as it's not legal. Meaning drug sellers can in theory sell at a inflated price, because of no competition. Whereas if you could find these things in a store or pharmacy, then it limits the prices in which criminals can sell for (Examples being black market cigarettes or perscription drugs or even alcohol). Meaning IF they were legal, the criminals would probably have to lower their prices to be in competition with legal goods. Lower profits -> damage to business. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it's the only thing I can think of that could damage organized crime.

But, say your company sells a good, and the demand for that good drops drastically.. There may be layoffs in your company due to less earnings. It would work much the same in organised crime. As it runs much in the way a business.. Hence the organised part.

Z E R O wrote:I'm not saying Ending drug prohibition would END organised crime. It would HURT organised crime. Like I said, it's not something you can end. As long as there are laws, there are people who be willing to break them to make a buck.

Legalizing + Taxing and regulating drug markets sets a price on something that currently has no official value as it's not legal. Meaning drug sellers can in theory sell at a inflated price, because of no competition. Whereas if you could find these things in a store or pharmacy, then it limits the prices in which criminals can sell for (Examples being black market cigarettes or perscription drugs or even alcohol). Meaning IF they were legal, the criminals would probably have to lower their prices to be in competition with legal goods. Lower profits -> damage to business. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it's the only thing I can think of that could damage organized crime.

Cigarettes counterfeits are damn cheap as they are done with the leftovers from tobacco industry among other sources and aren't taxed nor have the "extra cost coming from a famous brand" thus making them cheaper. Drugs can easily be cut and counterfeit not only to increase the profits, but also to have consumers get addicted to other drugs to have their market shares increased. In countries where they installed "drug consuming rooms" where junkies can consume their drugs with personnel care to avoid health problem, amount of drug dealers gravitating around said places increased and drug consuming increased quite a bit in such places (Germany, Australia, Norway to name a few countries).

The only proper way to fight a crime organization is to jail its leaders, and seize their capital. A "company" with neither capital nor efficient leaders cannot survive correctly.

But, say your company sells a good, and the demand for that good drops drastically.. There may be layoffs in your company due to less earnings. It would work much the same in organised crime. As it runs much in the way a business.. Hence the organised part.

Gambling places and cabarets are often background-controlled by organized crime, not because they are forbidden or dangerous activities, but because it's a safe and lucrative way to have a cover and still make profits while doing the illegal stuff in background to have "extra" profits. Legalized drugs stores would be another casinos/cabarets in town, wouldn't stop the organized crime though. Drugs are on the other hand a more serious problem than dancing girls or card-game tables...

Oh boy!

As ZERO stated, your cigarette comparison Jim is horrible. when i had my imports and exports business i witnessed first hand cigarette trafficking and i can tell you with experience, they trafficked real and copy cigarettes for 1 simple reason, the money is there. the reason the money is there because people are fed up to the back teeth of paying taxes through the nose. if the money is not there who in their right mind would traffic anything?
1 example of being taxed into oblivion is petrol, for every £80ish pounds of fuel i purchase £65ish is paid in VAT and fuel duty. a few years back when you could go and buy vegetable oil for something like 15 pence a litre the Govt became aware that people with diesel cars were running their cars on vegetable oil so they hiked the price up comparable to a litre of diesel...for cooking oil!

Govt needs to just **Filtered** OFF out of the way and let the people take care of things. stop taxing the crap out of the people and leave us the **Filtered** alone!

Also as ZERO stated, prohibition does not work, if it did America would now be an alcohol free nation. what probation did was make MASSIVE profits for the criminal organisations. furthermore, before the alcohol prohibition less people were drinkers than after prohibition. by the same token, since drugs were made illegal more people started taking drugs than when it was legal to do so. that is historical fact. also, how many people are sitting in jail on drug related charges who are non-violent and non-criminals who are generally law abiding citizens???

Think about it Jim, your argument about drugs does not hold water, if you want to reduce a whole host of criminal activities, from drug running to burglary to feed a habit that would otherwise be inexpensive if decriminalised...legalise or at the very least, decriminalise drugs.


As for criminality...if crime didn't pay then how come there are so many crimes being committed by everyone from all levels of society?
As long as crime pays there will be criminals regardless of the crime.

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Lithium wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Such as traffic networks (drugs, weapons, counterfeit goods...) is for the justice to seize their goods (investments, cars, bank accounts), because jail alone is often seen as a reputation booster for them and they would always find someone to replace them (even if less "competent" they would find someone to carry on the 'biz'). On the other hand, seize their goods and there, you really cut the grass. Jail must therefore be coupled with seizing.
Now our police has some ultrasport cars in their garage seized off criminals and is able with money seized off them improve infrastructures to enhance the fight against criminality. That is if the silly new government doesn't want to remove it out of ideological nonsense...

your judgment comes from a simple mind think how to fight an enemy that in fact is product of a sick society.
Did u know that in the major countries of EU/US jails are owned by privates???? It is a business nowadays.
Take a look at Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie. There's a section that talks about criminality and how to fight it in the proper manners.

have a good look i bet u ll like it.

The "judgment from a simple mind" you talk about I take this theory from is an experienced criminologist, director of research at one of our finest Law universities..
In fact, this seizing measure is currently in place thanks to previous government and is doing quite well to cut the grass below criminal networks.

as far as i remember from the movie the one that was analyzing the crime had a 40 year experience analyzing the most dangerous criminals minds (UK maybe).

u cant fight fire with fire its a game that burns.

one tactic i herd new modern crime is using: they put their babies to do army and they return fine soldiers and who can match them???? Its been only few years now highly def countries are traiing their Policy team with modern techniques.
Cops have an adv over normal ppl not vs org crime....so does this mean we need army to run the cities....fine what a world. tell this to yr Professor next time.