True World Crime Rates Much Higher Than Statistics Report

True crime statistics outlining actual crimes committed would reveal that the crime rate is actually much higher than what is being projected. One of the issues at hand is that vast networks of high-level criminals that are breaking laws are not being prosecuted, therefore, the mainstream world crime statistics are artificially low. The reality of this expanding elite criminal class has been documented in numerous sources. It is not just that elite criminals are being left alone, but that values are being totally reversed as well. Even the crime of torture is not being prosecuted in the US today. When searching for world crime statistics, the main subjects that appear are "homicide" and "murder." But there is much more to the picture. Consider, for example, that governments are not likely to allow their own government agencies to report on criminal activities presently occurring by the very same governments. But this is typically how global crime rates are reported.

I. The Economist Highlights how Crime Statistics are Based on A Small Fraction of Categories

The Economist journal published a misleading post titled, "Why is crime falling?" wherein the same post offers a revealing quote that contradicts the title: "Electronic crime and fraud has distracted some professional criminals from traditional ways of stealing stuff." The author claims that "fraud" is distracting run-of-the mill criminals from petty crimes. I would offer another opinion: Petty crime statistics are distracting statisticians from the much more widespread and pervasive problems of white-collar corporate crimes, government crimes and twisted ethical positions and laws that no longer define heinous crimes as crimes. Crime is not actually "falling" today at all, it is alive and well, even as the Economist article insinuates. The statistic problem is plainly outlined, though, that statisticians who focus on petty  crime categories and standard crime categories while white-collar corporate crime, government crime, and twisted ethical and legal positions should also be considered prior to claiming that, "crime is falling."

II. Monopolistic Corporate Theft is Considered Necessary for the Greater Good Today.

There are no official world crime statistics regarding the now-famous financial criminals that perpetrated fraud, malfeasance and theft against the American people. That is because not one single criminal has been officially charged and prosecuted. A 1999 memo entitled “Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations,” written by then deputy U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder stated that “collateral consequences" should be weighed when considering the prosecution of white-collar criminals. And for the "greater good" of society, ultimately Holder and other government officials and agencies let criminals walk free, likely never to face any criminal charges for actual crimes that devastated the lives of millions of people. Even the financial penalties against the criminal corporations ended up only hurting the tax payer because these ended up as nothing more than corporate tax write offs.

In contrast to today's runaway monopolized corruption, Standard Oil, that controlled 80% of the US oil business, was broken up by the government. The federal Commissioner of Corporations wrote in 1906: "beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products". In 1909, the US Department of Justice sued Standard under federal anti-trust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce. On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly.

III. Torture is not Considered a Crime in the US Today

President Obama has officially gone on record stating that, "We tortured some folks." But most experts believe that no one will ever be held accountable in the US for, A) directing torture and, B) destroying evidence related to torture. A number of authorities have offered the opinion that US torture criminals should be "officially pardoned" so that there is a legal record documenting that torture is actually a crime. And this will supposedly prevent secret torturing from happening again. This opinion is not contested in a  Harvard Divinity School memo. Research Professor of Ethics Arthur J. Dyck was asked about this in an interview:

"HDS: Should the people involved in the interrogations be prosecuted? Dyck: Not necessarily. The best thing might be to issue an official pardon, which signals that the actions were unacceptable. If not, we risk creating a situation where no one wants to serve, which creates a problem with keeping the nation secure."

To me this answer is incredibly sickening for a number of reasons. In the linked interview, neither the interviewer nor the final commentary in a divinity school publication on torture can plainly state that torture is ethically unacceptable and should be punished, no matter the excuses. First, US laws have been based on the concept of fixed "inalienable rights" related to human exceptionalism. The excuse that, "torture may be effective once in a while" is antithetical to that longstanding system. Second, the interview comment  implies that it is not possible to serve in the U.S. military without the possibility of being asked to perform inhumane torture acts that are recognized internationally as illegal and criminal. 
  
If you would like to understand just how slippery the slippery slope gets when you remove absolute standards, check out the following quotes by John Yoo, the attorney who scrambled to write new legal memos beginning in 2001 that supposedly allowed George W. Bush and the "Bush Six" to "legally" approve CIA torture.

IV: Twisted Ethics Example: Bush's Neocon Lawyer says Torturing Children is Legal

As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat. On December 1, 2005, John Yoo enjoined a debate with Doug Cassel, a human rights legal scholar at Notre Dame. The following is an excerpt:
 

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

The logic of Yoo is as follows, as David Cole puts it: “Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the ‘Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished.” The YouTube link to Yoo's debate is here.

Yoo's quote is one example of many possible examples that outline how twisted ethical views are being used in order to supposedly justify illegal and criminal acts. 

V. Multiple Illegal and Unconstitutional Acts Demonstrate Unabridged Government Crime 

In accordance with the US Constitution, the law of the land, spying on citizens without proper reason or authority is illegal and criminal. A New York Times writer calls it what it is, in an article titled, "The Criminal NSA". This spying is not directed at real criminals, but at every single citizen. This is one of many illegal acts perpetrated by the US Government for our so-called greater good. If one were to take every illegal government act and identify everyone involved in directing and enforcing the crimes, then the crime statistics would be off the charts in post-9-11 society. And this type of criminal and unaccountable government behavior occurring all across the world, not just in the US.

 

Just recently, "Texas lawmaker Dan Flynn has introduced legislation that would invalidate within the sovereign borders of his state every act of the federal government that exceeds its constitutionally derived authority." According to the New American website, a number of states are joining in writing legislation that forbids illegal and unconstitutional federal crimes on state territory. It is not clear where this will lead. But one thing is clear. Crime is not decreasing. It is increasing dramatically, but it is not being accurately labeled by the mainstream media and crime statisticians.

References

1. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-16

2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/eric-holder-1999-memo_n_3384980.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-vogl/rakoff-wall-street-prosecutions_b_4589648.html
4. http://hds.harvard.edu/news/2014/12/12/golden-rule-terror-suspects#
5. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19709-texas-rep-s-bill-will-nullify-all-federal-unconstitutional-acts
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Tags: True crime statistics show an increase of crime and lawlessness, world crime statistics, ethical relativism, forms of crime today, twisted ethical standards