Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

It seems like it's time to petition the white house to go after ANYONE named in the papers, and let them prove in court that they weren't really evading taxes and that they had a legitimate, legal reason to have their money there, or go to jail for tax evasion like Capone. If 95% of what they do there is tax evasion, it's reasonable to presume their customers guilty until proven innocent.
If we aren't going to prosecute these people for clearly and massively stealing from the country, then there is no rule of law and it's already Mad Max times, and the Koch brothers are really the Lord Humongous and Immortan Joe .

Wait, I am confused... Obama is black, and usually presumed guilty before innocent as a black man first. We agree on that 100% I assume...but the proper way to word your argument would have been, "when a black man is shot and killed by a Hispanic, you are here insisting the Hispanic guy is innocent until proven guilty."

If we say Zimmerman is for the most part white, then Obama is white too, and that's just retarded... We know society goes by racial clumping and that shit is not going to change any time soon. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard "White Hispanic" in my life--when the Media wants to stir up shit for dollar's sake.

If it had been Zimmerman shot by a KKK member, who thinks the fucking paper would label it a white-on-white crime? Who on the sift would label it as such?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media% 20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.

And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.
Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.
That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift
I understand your fear and anger. When leftists encounter a conservative that puts forth simple, logical arguements that conflict with liberal ideology, your response is the default. Lash out. Attack. Insult. That's all the left has really got. We see it in the blogosphere right now with the Obamacare SCOTUS case. Liberals are literally gobsmacked at how Barry-boy's law has been so utterly and easily turned into swiss cheese - even though the arguments have been there for decades. Not having any intelligent, logical response to the simple, common-sense arguments, what do they do? Visit the leftist blog of your choice to see netizens stomping and bellowing like elephants - much like yourself. You suffer from the same malady, but on a smaller scale when you encounter me here on the Sift. I understand, and you have my pity.
But of course the truth is that I've never done any of the things you accuse me of. Like far too many on the left, you appear to confuse your hatred and anger towards an intellectual idea that contrasts your own with the persons present them. There is so much bologna flying around the internet about this Trevon case in particular that I have refused to take any stance whatsoever. I am not the guy tweeting the address of retirees to lynch mobs. I am not the guy putting out 'dead or alive' bounties. I'm not the guy making wild accusations based on 3rd hand internet stories, facebook comments, and media talking points which are based on rumors, innuendo, and theory. I'm just a guy saying, "chillax".
What I find loathsome is the tone of the discussion. It reminds me very much of the Duke Lacrosse case where the media latched on to a sensational story and ran with it, kicked out a narrative they liked, and pretended it was true. The whole nation tried, convicted, and demanded the execution of the Lacrosse team. The "evidence" was equally conclusive. How could a bunch of rich white boys NOT be guilty? Aaaaand then when the actual investigation happened the whole thing fell apart. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying it is too early to say anything at all, and that there's a ton of agenda-based, race-inspired hype rush to jugement that is causing a lot of people on the indeological left to forget the first rule in US jurisprudence...
Innocent until proven guilty.
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES. The media doesn't know anything, and there are a ton of race-baiters down there in Florida that are very desperately churning up everything they can in order to advance the agenda that this was a hate crime. Frankly, I'm not buying it. I'll wait for the actual investigation. All this stuff flying around right now is obviously designed to establish a narrative before the trial - and I'm not listening to a word of it.
Why? Adam Corrola of all people nails it in his podcast...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/29/Adam-Carolla-Media%
20Bias
The entire story about that "poor persecuted gay student driven to suicide by his bigoted roommate"? Yeah - it was all bullcrap. So was the Duke Lacrosse case. Again - I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm saying let's wait for some REAL data as opposed to all this clearly agenda-driven bullcrap that is designed to establish a narrative. You all think you're smart, right? Prove it for a change and stop being parrots. There's a ton of people down there throwing gas bombs so you'll react the way they want. Stop being thier tools. Shut off the news. Ignore everyone who is shouting for your attention - because they're probably a charlatan or demagogue. Just go about your business and wait for the courts to take care of this.


And yet when it comes to Obama he's guilty until proven innocent.

Your ignoring the biggest accusation leveled against you. When a black man is shot and killed by a white guy, you are here insisting the white guy is innocent until proven guilty, which is fine and nobody is even really arguing against it. The trouble is at the exact same time you go around insisting that a black man who has been accepted as president forged his birth records and was in fact born in Kenya, guilty until proven innocent, and not even a certified birth certificate accepted by the highest authority in the state is in your mind enough evidence to prove his innocence.

That contradiction of positions that paints you in a horrific light and you might want to address it rather than ignoring it.

definitely the best video on SOPA I've seen, and I've watched a lot of them. Some of the other ones are delivered better, or more uniquely, and some provide a better glimpse of the overall effects of the bill (e.g. guilty until proven innocent ramifications). However this is the best at explaining the specific parts of the act that are so damaging, as well as what they mean, which is what is the most important in my view.

If you guys really believe any one of these cops wants to be apart of the protest and at the same time is one of the people containing the protest then I urge you guys to encourage these people to step up for an interview. I have a crew that would interview them with immense respect in a heartbeat.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

"One thing is obvious, an undercover cop wearing a political Tee and hanging out in a protest should be unacceptable police procedure for a supposedly democratic society."
Yeah, fuck the cops. They're not allowed be part of the solution. They must not think for themselves. There is no possible way he's there because he believes in the protest and we should absolutely apply the "guilty until proven innocent" principle here.

TSA: We have to train and condition Americans to feel guilty until proven innocent.

Guilty until proven innocent.

>> ^Mandtis:

"Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees[3] and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel work in the Pentagon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
5200 out of about 26000...?? Not a chance I can believe that.


Well, every single word of the title is inaccurate or misleading. It's mind boggling really. The title is taken directly from MoxNews' post, so I don't blame gwiz. But let me try to make a clear list of everything wrong with the title.

1. "5200" - That was the complete number of names/e-mail addresses swept up under ICE project flicker. This was not an investigation into the DoD, but they came across several e-mail addresses that obviously belonged to the DoD. The Pentagon's investigative branch (DCIS) was informed of this and for some reason they checked only 3500 of those names, and of those 3500 found 264 DoD employees.

2. "Pentagon Employees" - No, they were investigating Department of Defense Employees and Contractors, the Pentagon is only one small part of the DoD. The DoD includes Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, DARPA, DIA, NSA, ect. According to Wikipedia there were over 2 million DoD employees in 2009. Plus an unknown number of contractors who are not counted as employees. Coup mentions that Contractors were part of the DCIS investigation at 1:08. So if DCIS did cross check the names against all DoD employees and Contractors, we're talking about basically the entire US Military Industrial Complex. "Pentagon employees" might be 1% of that.

3. "PURCHASED Child Pornography!" - 264 are the number of suspects who were employees or contractors of the DoD. You cannot assume that every suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Coup mentioned that fewer than 20% of them were fully investigated (so less than 52 people). He goes on to say "fewer still were prosecuted", and doesn't mention the total number found guilty.

I agree it's an outrage that they stopped the investigation before looking at the entire list, or completely investigating all of the matches. And it's good to see CNN putting pressure on them to reopen the investigation. But this MoxNews fellow is either completely unscrupulous in spreading misinformation to get views, or just not very smart.

If only there were a significant party on the side of Liberty, maybe we could make some progress, but first I guess we need a significant slice of the population to be interested in Liberty.

The American people do not want Liberty. Not the Democrats, the Republicans, the left, the right, the conservatives, the progressives or any other label you can come up with. Our aversion to Liberty is only to be outdone by the commercial sector and corporate interests.

American Government, state or federal, regardless who has been in control, has been aggressively increasing its size and power particularly in the last 30 years. The War on Drugs and general drug law, DMCA, PATRIOT Act, anything to do with Dept of Homeland Security, War on Terror, Free Speech Zones, Same-sex Marriage bans, AZ's Guilty-Until-Proven-Innocent immigration law, ban on Gays in the Military, Communications Decency Act, sodomy laws, prostitution laws... and I could go on but I want to go to bed soon.

By and large we're happy to surrender our liberties so that the government can "protect" us from terrorists, gays, Mexicans, Muslims, drugs, and any and all forms of responsibility.

Anyone who thinks it's only the "other party" that's the problem is lying to themselves or terribly uninformed.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Today the battle is between Statism and Liberty.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. First off, when I said I'd like to hear a realistic and better system proposed, I wasn't being snarky; I really would be interested in hearing ideas of that sort. Your implication that I think the system is perfect and cops should be free to do as they see fit is way out of line.

What I am saying is don't dig your hole deeper by assaulting the officer who is trying to arrest you (or someone else). You're not accomplishing anything. If you were innocent of the crime you were being arrested for, you've damaged your character and committed a crime that you're practically guaranteed to be convicted of. If you were guilty of the first crime, now you're guilty of two. These girls just went from paying a piddly fine to (probably) extended probation and maybe some jail time.

Being suspected of something doesn't make a bit of difference. I could say I suspect you're a meth-head based on your inability to communicate in complete sentences. Does it mean anything without substantiating evidence? No. Have your rights been violated? No.

The police are there to protect our collective interests. Perhaps certain individuals aren't but, collectively, that is the purpose for their existence. If you think the law should be changed then work to change it. Violent retaliation against the police only weakens your position, whether you're right or wrong.

Personally, I'd love to see all drugs legalized and I'd also love to see some reform in and around traffic tickets/court. These don't involve restructuring the system, however. Claiming that you are "guilty until proven innocent" in a system intended to be the exact opposite implies something along the lines of starting with a clean slate, IMO.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So because you personally can't think of sensible reforms to law-making and enforcement.. that makes it okay for anyone who's willing to complete police academy to misuse the law to arrest anyone for any reason and abuse/assault them as much as the feel the need to?
http://videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops @min 5:22
Being arrested means you're "suspected" of being guilty of violating a law.
Since the law is written so that any actions you take can be construed or later be found to be a violation of the law..
You are in effect. Guilty until the State can't or doesn't feel like prosecuting you.
Stop acting like police are there to protect your interest.
Police only exist to protect business and political interests of the power elite.
Arrest quotas & the "war on drugs" only exist as excuses to keep police in business.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You've proven him wrong, now prove he's a liar. He might just be a moron.
>> ^garmachi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
"If anyone can show that he was mistaken instead of lying, feel free to move this to the "Fail" channel."
Guilty until proven innocent, then?

No.
Newt: "He was an American Citizen..."
Reality: "He was not." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29
(Hint: click this link and then search for "British Citizen"...)



Six of one, half dozen of the other...

You've proven him wrong, now prove he's a liar. He might just be a moron.
>> ^garmachi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
"If anyone can show that he was mistaken instead of lying, feel free to move this to the "Fail" channel."
Guilty until proven innocent, then?

No.
Newt: "He was an American Citizen..."
Reality: "He was not." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29
(Hint: click this link and then search for "British Citizen"...)