Nazi concentration camp tattoo
And then, Aadhar Cards were dumped in garbage
If there weren’t enough issues with fake cards doing the rounds, more than 200 Aadhar Cards were found lying dumped in garbage in a garbage bin at Kajheri village in Chandigarh district early in March this year. Instead of being delivered to their respective owners, the cards were dumped unceremoniously on the road triggering dissent among locals who expressed disgust at having to enroll for Aadhaar after standing for hours in long queues but find their cards thrown away in garbage."
In the absence of substantial public opposition to those dangerous proposals, Congress could approve and President Clinton could sign into law a national identification system as early as this fall. Policymakers, however, should prevent that from happening for several reasons:
- Lack of constitutional authority. Congress lacks
any authority to establish a national computer regis
try, to compel citizens to obtain a national ID card,
or to involve itself so intimately in the everyday
business decisions of employers.
- Invasion of privacy. The computer registry is an
assault on Americans' basic civil liberties. Once
established, the computer registry could be expanded in
ways that would increase the size and scope of government.
It might, for example, be used to implement a
Clinton-style health care plan and security card,
ensure employer compliance with affirmative action
requirements, track child support payments, verify that
parents are getting their children vaccinated, and
conduct background checks on people who want to purchase
guns. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) favors a
national ID card that would include such information as
photograph, finger print, and retina scan.
- Costs to employers and taxpayers. The Social Security
Administration acknowledges that a full-blown
national ID system would cost at least $3 billion to $6
billion--about 10 to 20 times more than the proponents
of a worker registry have estimated. The system might
also impose compliance costs of at least several hundred
dollars on every employer if it required the
purchase of verification equipment. The costs for many
employers would shoot into the thousands of dollars.
By injecting government into the equation, an ID system
would also cause undue delays in hiring.
- Error rates. Any federal computer registry will be
contaminated with large amounts of faulty data that
will render the system unreliable. Even the best
government databases have error rates of 10, 20, and 30
percent. But if the national computer registry had an
error rate of just 1 percent, the federal government
would wrongly deny jobs to 650,000 American workers
each year because of bureaucratic mistakes in Washington.
- An unworkable solution. Many employers hire illegal aliens, even though they know that they are breaking the law. There is no reason to believe that they will suddenly start to comply with federal laws regarding national identification. And the vast majority of employers--who do not hire illegal immigrants--will face yet another regulatory obstacle.
The e verify system what happened to it during the government shutdown
The e verify system what happened to it during the government shutdown
"Due To Partial Government Shutdown, Immigration Status Check System 'E-Verify' Is Actually Not Verifying
By Alicia Acuna
Fox News Latino"
Criminal justice
American oubliette
Life without parole is an outrageous sentence for non-violent criminals
His punishment is harsh because he is a recidivist in a state with mandatory tough sentences for habitual criminals. Under Louisiana’s “four-strikes” law, his two previous convictions for stealing from cars and one juvenile conviction for robbery gave the judge no choice but to throw away the key.
Forget them not
No one knows how many non-violent criminals are serving life
without parole in America, but the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) has counted 3,278 in the federal system and the states that
release statistics (see article).
The true number is probably higher. And this does not include prisoners
serving sentences that, while not technically “life without parole”,
are so long that it makes little difference, such as Bernie Madoff’s
150-year penalty for a massive financial fraud.Some criminals should be locked up for ever. It would be absurdly risky to release a murderer like Mr Manson, who shows no remorse and still describes himself as dangerous. For those who oppose the death penalty (as The Economist does), “whole life” sentences are a useful alternative. Many voters want murderers to be executed to make sure they never kill again; support for capital punishment weakens when the option of permanent incarceration is available.
But there is no way to justify oubliettes for shoplifters. Judges who are allowed to use their discretion hardly ever condemn non-violent criminals to life without parole. In the ACLU’s sample, 83% of such sentences were the result of mandatory-sentencing laws. Most (79%) were for drug offences. Some of the criminals involved were kingpins, but others were low-level couriers or clueless addicts caught up in big drug busts. (Key members of a drug gang can often trade information for lighter sentences; peripheral figures typically know too little to do the same.) The drug crimes that trigger life without parole can be as trivial as owning a crack pipe or a bottle cap with a trace of heroin on it. The non-drug crimes can be just as ludicrous: trying to cash a stolen cheque; siphoning petrol from a truck; threatening a cop while handcuffed.
The inmates of the American oubliette are typically poor and none too bright. Many had bad lawyers. Most are black. Those who receive life without parole for non-violent crimes are even more likely to be black than prisoners in general: 65% of the national total and 91% of those in Louisiana, estimates the ACLU. But the problem with the system is not racial bias; applying such draconian, hope-crushing sentences to non-violent offenders of any race is cruel and pointless.
The main purpose of prison is to reduce crime, by keeping criminals off the streets and deterring others from following their example. It makes sense to lock violent offenders away, especially while they are young, fit and impulsive, and to treat habitual criminals more severely than novices. But keeping petty thieves in cells until they die of old age yields negligible benefits at ruinous expense. A year behind bars can cost more than tuition at Harvard; the human cost is unknowable.
In August Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s attorney-general, admitted that America locks up too many people for far too long: with a twentieth of the world’s population, it has a quarter of its prisoners. Mr Holder promised to tell federal prosecutors to seek shorter sentences for non-violent offenders with no ties to organised crime. That was a good start, but no more.
Congress and state legislatures should scrap mandatory sentencing and let judges judge. America should favour shorter sentences coupled with greater efforts to rehabilitate wrongdoers—electronic ankle tags are cheaper and kinder than incarceration. Ideally, more states would join the 20 that have decriminalised marijuana, as a step towards treating addicts instead of punishing them. At the very least, Mr Obama and the state governors should use their clemency powers to reduce the sentences of those now locked up for ever for non-violent crimes. Mr Jackson’s sister told the ACLU: “It’s like he don’t even exist no more.” But he does, and his punishment disgraces every American official who has colluded in it.
"
No comments:
Post a Comment