Weird and Wonderful would like to highlight the injustices around the world. I thought about the programmes “Making a Murderer“ and “The Hunting Ground” on Netflix (2015).
I would like to appeal that I am one of the most fortunate people in the world, because I lived in the European Union – therefore, my “presumption of innocence,” is validated and my claims for a case comes with the following guidelines from the European Commission (2014):
“The Commission and the European Parliament are joining forces to deliver stronger rights for Europe’s 507 million citizens. Today’s vote paves the way towards putting in place a series of procedural rights which will apply to all citizens who are caught in criminal proceedings, throughout the European Union. We are building a true European area of justice. This proposal will make sure that the core principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is made effective across the EU. Citizens should expect a similar level of protection when they travel in Europe as they find at home. It is now up to Justice Ministers to advance this proposal so it can swiftly become law.”
It doesn’t increase crime statistics it just means if I am basically put on trial – I can be innocent, or, deemed innocent even by the way I dress, or, look, or, I have a family member who has been tried for the same criminal offence – I am given a fair perspective and I am not judged for being who I am; based on whatever I am accused of.
The court system is based on evidence because of actions committed – so the judgement is not bias. Even as a victim I am given a fair amount of respect to my privacy and I have nothing that could be deemed as malicious or vindictive happen to me if I was say…. for example a woman who was raped, or, a man who was raped.
The media cannot make accusations before the trial has begun and they too can be found guilty of malicious intent or jury swaying. This is very vital for fair trials.
I feel that after viewing “Making a Murder” Netflix (2015) it made me look up my rights. As the European Commission (2014) state my rights as the following:
“The proposal aims to guarantee respect for the presumption of innocence of all citizens suspected or accused by police and judicial authorities, and the right to be present at trial. It will in particular guarantee that (1) guilt cannot be inferred by any official decisions or statements before a final conviction; (2) the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution and any doubt benefits the suspect or accused person; (3) the right to remain silent is guaranteed and not used against suspects to secure conviction; and (4) the accused has the right to be present at the trial.
The proposal is part of a package of measures to further strengthen safeguards for citizens in criminal proceedings (MEMO/13/1046). The other proposals in the package aim to make sure children have special safeguards when facing criminal proceedings and guarantee access of suspects and accused to provisional legal aid at the early stages of proceedings and especially for people subject to a European Arrest Warrant.“
Now, I like to make sure that people aware are of the Magna Carta (1215) and the rights to a fair trial was based upon the framework of the Magna Carta. Due its age many countries were not even founded before the Magna Carta was made; so the argument is that the magna Carta is one most of the most influential legally based frame works in history.
Reflecting even back to the war crimes of WWII – the many who were convicted where given a fair trial. The presumption of innocence was granted and the soldiers who controlled Concentration camps were told they needed to tell their story. This is to find out how much they were accountable for.
The problem about telling your story to people who think you are guilty, their mind is set and you are unable to persuade them otherwise – “you are guilty. Lock you up and throw away the key, or have the death sentence.”
Basically, you are doomed and will never tell the truth. It gives so many people whom have the chance to not admit they did not participate in a crime, the chance to whittle their lives away in prison. So, therefore, a man whom is finically inept, or, a person whom has never been educated, can just be given a prison sentence and they do not need to participate in society to pay taxes,or, to even contribute like a human being should.
I mean, come on – everyone has a function in society and being institutionalised is not really beneficial to anyone in society.
Not paying taxes is just one of those things…. if the government does not provide enough jobs to counter balance the situation; then they come out with alternative modes to lock people up and make them stay off the streets but who pays?
So the people come out with innovative ways to pay their taxes and get caught and end up in prison. Who pays?
“Tax payers pay!”
When the prison system is private they make money from Tax payers.
So when there are too many in prison and not enough working in the general population it does not benefit the country; it is better to facilitate their rehabilitation and get them back into work.
However, in America which means unfortunately Britain, Austrialia and New Zealand are following: prisons are a private affair because there is money to be made. As “How the American Privatised prison system is spreading overseas” Anjani Trived (2013):
“Private operators are making increased profits from such emerging markets. The U.S’s second-largest private prison company,GEO Group, saw 14% of its revenue come from international contracts last year. The world’s largest security provider, UK-basedG4S, also saw strong revenue growth in markets outside the U.S. in 2012.”
The most shocking of information is reading: Private companies take advantage of the tax system and make judicial authorities sentence innocent individuals. This is perhaps due to the stake in the shares of the private companies: judges, clerks, prison officers, detectives, defence attorneys and even counsellors or mayors.
This is really unethical, as the figures would imply there is a systematic series of abuse within the framework of these organisations.
People may not understand the complexities of how unethical it is to have so many people in control of your lives. If you do not comply to their ideology of the world – they profit from your exclusion from the world.
This is considered as “big time corruption”, from people who believe in a decent welfare system which does not neglect, or, discriminate, or, create situations of chaos, to increase prison funds: this does happen in several countries and people really need to wake up and realise rehabilitation means – a working population; more paying taxes means it is more of a balance.
I am talking about the possibility of preventing repeat offences so it does not cost the state. If we look at the figures from the World Prison Brief (2015):
(If your country is not on the list by all means, feel free to click on the highlighted name.) I am not sure about all the private companies for every country in the world, but, I feel it is necessary to argue the unethical approach that we all have to life right now- it’s weird not wonderful.
Ethically Private companies can profit from the people’s taxes. So speculating about “The Hunting ground” Netflix (2015); these women would have been told they are making false rape allegation claims because the man who raped them had a stake in one of the private companies; is a football player for an ivy legal school; has a parent who has a stake in the pension of a prison; the faternity of rich people who profited from the stakes of people’s taxes work in government.
This just kept popping out the wood work. I do believe in a more socialist model: You pay your taxes and then have state run and local authorities do not own anything – the state owns it. I believe in this because of things that are happening in America are just too weird for me and they aren’t wonderful.
These figures indicate that the US has a large population of 318 million people with a prison population of 2,217,000 (7.5% approx) . Comparing Germany whom have a population of 80 million and only 61,906 (less than 1% approx) prisoner’s to say China with a population of 1,393,783,836 (yes this is a billion figure!), with only a million prisoners – 1, 657,812 (1% approx). You would think it would be the other way round because China are a post communist state. I would have thought they would have more crime to their billion population – I now see this is not true.
These figures indicate that there is profit in the welfare of individuals with private companies. The money comes from Tax payers and it is actually lining the pockets of individuals – thus it means – there is no justice for people.
If the government is in control of the finances of the state, it means, there will be less prisoners because the governemnt would want to spend money on improving society. This is the example of the figures from China or Germany.
Exploitation happens when individuals seek opportunities like this and then they stake a claim to profit from it – there has to be a line drawn under the expenditures and the disruption into society. If you have a small town or something that is considered a small community – having so many bad apples is not necessarily a good thing because no one feels safe.
Locking innocent people away means you have not caught the killer. Being guilty all the time means the people who have money invested in their private companies; would like to call you guilty and keep you in prison…. they do not even think about your basic human rights. They do not care if your family has no food or ways or means of paying taxes.
It is actually known as your basic human right law as Clause 11 “Innocent till proven Guilty” (video clip shows why we have the presumption of innocence and to provide you with a fair trial.) I feel I could never live in a society that always accuses one another of being guilty. I would always live in constant fear and judgement. There would be a feeling of distrust for everyone and eventually, I would be so stressed with feeling that I couldn’t trust any one that I would be ill and die. Anxiety is a serious illness and so is depression. If your body is constantly under threat it makes you more vulnerable to long term illnesses like for example Cancer or HIV.
Anxiety of the victims is especially rehabilitation based. Perhaps the victim would want justice and to take it upon themselves to seek revenge; as they were subjected to abuse or they were raped violently…. because the trauma was so strong they felt like they had to retaliate.
This is seen as an accusation rather than the person was innocent before and they were mistreated therefore the outcome was them retaliating. I am trying to explain that you will always be guilty even as a victim of a violent attack and it could be argued that you would retaliate. However, some retaliation is good…. it means the system has to change.
The women in “The Hunting ground” Netflix ( 2015) displayed “collectivism” because the system needed to change. They would always be the repeated offences or sexual attacks if they did not stand up against their attackers.
The other thing I would like to add is that these figures always rise in certain countries, they never fall. It should be a state goal to not have repeat offender’s. Rehabilitation is for everyone; recovery is vital for the production and growth in society. Social cohesion is vital for the wealth of countries.
An imbalance of society in crime and deviance would be more manipulative than anything – it doesn’t put the fear into people, it does not mean the middle income families receive a tax break. According to Robert Merton (1957), we need to be esteemed in society to make things feel balanced as he describes “typology“:
“Social strain typology, is based upon two criteria: (1) a person’s motivations or adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person’s belief in how to attain her goals.”
Take for example the women who were raped in “The hunting ground,” they have their goals; they were not going to commit a crime or be deviant because they adhered to most of the cultural goals. The men who committed the crimes where passed the social adherence levels – they were seen as god like character’s: invincible. So there for they would be seen as “innovators” or “opportunists” or “sociopaths“.
If we look at the structural strain theory of Robert Merton (1957) he had Five Catergories Of People:
▪ Conformists – know their law’s and abide by them and work within the constructs of society.
▪ Ritualist – know the law and are happy within the constructs and always push themselves to be better.
▪ Innovators – these are devious people and they are able to make money from their illicit behaviour.
▪ Retreatants – reject the idea of being apart of society or could be drug addicts or alcohol addicts.
▪ Rebels – totally reject society and display a total lack of dislike towards authority or anything to do with the system. They could be considered as extremists or terrorist’s: black panther, skin head, or jihadist.
The weird part to this is that most of the government would not like people to rebel further, or, there would be an imbalance in society – so they create an anomie environment, so people are distracted from the innovators or rebels or for example they would get the media to target the rebels and call them names.
I have looked at several versions of Merton (1957) and read Emilie Durkheim; I feel honestly I will go with the example I found in Boundless: The innovative ones could be involved in the Wall Street crash and had made a profit, for example, the stock brokers and the lawyers…. the rebels could be the ones who want social justice against the ones whom profited from the crash; who committed a crime against normal tax payers.
This example shows that there are reasons why government having full control of things is better than individuals profiting from people’s money. Also, the injustices of women: I think this is a scary notion of men and women whom are raped are treated with such lack of decency. They are told they brought it upon themselves and it was the way they were dressed: “guilty until proven innocent!”
The “making of a murder” proves you have to have money and a good career to even be considered as not a criminal. Psychologically this amount of pressure is dangerous. The amount of control the private companies have are actually unethical. You basically are doomed for the rest of your life if an individual sees you are related to someone who has less; how superficial is that?
It’s not right and it’s an injustice on people. I live to serve the HMS (his or her majesty) not god, or people’s versions of. If the law’s need changing then people vote to change them. I therefore, abide by them and respect the limitations and conform. I take this approach because I do not wish to be in the repeat cycle.
Change or break the cycle and you profit as a country. This is my outlook of innocent until proven guilty. This is the presumption of innocence is your basic human rights therefore, there is no distinction because you are human – we all make mistakes and we can all hit rock bottom.
Always finding people guilty no matter what angle means you provide a society which lives in constant fear. The accusations come from individuals who are not distinguishing a pattern of thought or correlating any chance of someone improving. It means a basic regression is inevitable as people will always break the law to stay afloat. The people profiting from private companies are creating a pressured environment which the ideologically created which is unethical.
If we always think people are guilty who do we trust? Please don’t say God because, it’s not the logical answer. The logical non – extremist answer is to give the presumption of innocence. So we can provide people with the opportunity of behaving in a trustworthy manner to uphold decency and a level of protection within the constructs of their minds.
This is why the world is weird and wonderful. Xxxx
Weird & ₩○NdeRf#ll _____