Seattle Crime Reports : Seattle Crime Blog : Seattle, Washington

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Not a crime in the traditional sense, but still downright criminal:

Beginning in January, shoppers must pay 20 cents for each plastic or paper bag they use at grocery, drug and convenience stores in Seattle.

The Seattle City Council this afternoon also passed a ban on foam containers at food-service businesses that also will take effect in January.

The stupidity of people in this supposedly educated city continues to amaze me: so afraid that they'll miss the trendy "going green" bandwagon, local busybodies are willing to put aside all common sense and dictate the shopping habits of those in their community, justifying it with claims that such meddling is acceptable because it's the "right thing to do." The idea that protecting the environment starts and ends with you has been twisted by these individuals: rather than the reasonable approach ("OK, our household will just stop using plastic bags") they're taking an unreasonable one ("We don't like plastic bags in the grocery stores, so we want to make sure anyone who uses them has to pay the price") and have somehow convinced the Seattle City Council to agree with them.

Well, the City Council, and its president Richard Conlin in particular, should be ashamed of the decision they made today. The only solace a reasonable man can take is knowing how foolish these folks will look when it's three years from now and the "positive impacts" of the tax that so many people are counting on will have proven to be nonexistent.

By the way: there's plenty more research into the ill effects of such a policy at the Northwest Economic Policy Seminar's site Seattle Bag Tax.org, which features information put together by a nonpartisan group of individuals who don't have an agenda beyond offering up the facts and examining the potential outcomes a bag tax could have on our city. The treehuggers rallying behind the tax should take some time to look over the site and see what impacts similar approaches have had in the rest of the world. But of course, I wouldn't expect them to. After all, what good are facts - and there are plenty of them here - when they prove your flimsy argument faulty?

• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

The issue of suicide has been popping up a lot lately, most recently with the city's plans to build a suicide barrier on the Aurora Bridge (detailed at SLOG on March 25). After paying attention to local news and getting a feel for the general attitude towards this taboo in our area, I've come to the realization that despite all it's libertarian leanings, Washington state has still got a ways to go before we're mature enough to deal with suicide-related matters appropriately.

The problem stems from the fact that we aren't looking at the issue from a reasonable perspective. A want to end ones life is two things:

1. A personal choice
2. A sign of weakness

Our culture fears suicide because we fear depression; and we fear depression because we think everyone should (and can) be happy. This couldn't be further from the truth. If society starts looking at depression and suicide as what they are - a weakness and the ultimate cop-out, respectively - we'll be much better suited to handle issues surrounding it when they inevitably arise in the future. If we start teaching kids that there's nothing glamorous about suicide and that it's a low-class way to go out, we'll be making a huge step in the right direction. After all, who wants to be remembered as a pussy and a chump?

The suicide barrier for the Aurora Bridge is a prime example of how stupidity can reign free when emotion (and the fallacy that "all human life is valuable and must be protected") gets a political foothold. So far, according to Jonah Spangenthal-Lee's report on SLOG, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has given $1.3 million to study a suicide barrier for the bridge, with another $6.2 million on the way. Though half of the funds will go towards a new lighting system on the bridge, the remaining money - approximately $3.75 million, by our count - will be exclusively for the barrier. That's $3.75 million we're putting towards saving the lives of those who don't want to be saved.

Sound like a foolish plan? That's because, like much of the nanny state decision-making that occurs in the Evergreen State, it is.

Of course, the hippies commenting on Jonah's piece seem to think otherwise. Commenter poppy says:

I'm pretty sure $3.1 million (not including the new lighting) for a barrier that would have saved about 40 lives the past ten years, including a 15 year old girl, isn't a waste of money.

Ah yes...invoking the suicide of a teenager to tug at the heartstrings and make your case even stronger. But look past the rhetoric, dear readers: even lowballing the cost as poppy has, $3.1 million to save 40 lives over 10 years is still a waste. These people do not want to live, and cannot cope with the stresses of everyday life that 6.6 billion of us face on a daily basis. Even spending $1 to save their lives seems like a waste.

There are some who share reasonable sentiments. Commenter Fierinferno offered a poignant response that captures my mood well:

If people want to die, let them. If suicide wasn't illegal then maybe they wouldn't be searching for a place that ensured their demise, rather than trying in the comfort of their own home where a chance of failure by discovery is so high.

Are the costs of body disposal so high that we have to save the taxpayers money? This is a legitimate question, because it's the only motivating factor I understand here.

[...]

Before everyone with a nephew or a grandmother who's committed suicide starts going on a tirade, please know that I've also loved people who have committed suicide. I didn't like it, I mourned them pitifully, but I believe it was their right to make that choice.

Well put. Despite experiencing the suicide of a family member firsthand, Fierinferno is a rare breed: one who doesn't let petty human emotion cloud their sense of logic.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Stranger's Josh Feit, who has been covering the political goings-on down in Olympia for SLOG, posted a brief update that caught our collective eye this morning.

It's in reference to HB 2713, described on the Legislature's official website as a bill aimed at "providing for broader collection of biological samples for the DNA identification of convicted sex offenders and other persons."

One can't help but raise their eyebrows at the final three words conveniently tucked into the end of that statement: "and other persons." In fact, upon further inspection, it turns out that the majority of the misdemeanors covered by HB 2713 aren't sex crimes at all.

According to Feit's post - which appears to have lifted the text directly from the bill itself - they include anyone convicted of the following:

• Animal cruelty in the second degree;
  
• Assault in the fourth degree;
  
• Custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree;
  
• Failure to register;
  
• Indecent exposure;
  
• Patronizing a prostitute;
  
• Permitting commercial sexual abuse of a minor;
  
• Permitting prostitution;
  
• Prostitution;
  
• Sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree;
  
• Unlawful harboring of a minor;
  
• and Violation of certain protection orders.

We at Seattle Crime Blog are generally opposed to the idea of the government storing DNA samples of anyone in the criminal justice system. But we'll concede that the DNA of certain sex offenders - serial rapists, for example - should be on file somewhere so that if those likely to re-offend actually do, it will be easier to track them.

Problem is, of the 12 crimes covered by the bill, only two of them - "custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree" and "sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree" - could make a legitimate case for DNA collection. But animal cruelty? Fourth degree assault? Violation of protection orders?

And what about "permitting prostitution"? Just what does that mean, and why does it warrant a DNA sample? As SLOG commenter Levislade notes:

Permitting prostitution? Isn't anyone who drives down Aurora without calling the police guilty of that?

Levislade is making a joke, of course...but it does raise some interesting questions as to why seemingly non-violent criminal acts require submission of DNA.

As Feit notes, this is all part of the Democrats' attempt to "look/get tough on crime." Apparently that means taking a page out of the Republican handbook: avoid the challenges associated with confronting serious crimes head-on, so that we can all pat ourselves on the backs for "getting tough" on the petty ones.

• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks

The other night, we were walking up Pike Street when we saw a police car whiz by with its lights on and pull to a screeching halt...behind a helmet-less bicyclist. We couldn't figure out why, until we got to thinking: does Seattle seriously have a helmet law?

The answer, it appears, is yes. And it's inspiring other cities to do the same:

All bicycle riders would have to wear a safety helmet under a law in the works before the Vancouver City Council.

The regulation would require helmets for all riders and passengers on bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, roller skates and unicycles on all roads, sidewalks and trails.

Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane, already have laws requiring helmets for all bicyclists.

Right... because Washingtonians can't be expected to make safe decisions, the government has a duty to do it for us. After all, nothing keeps society safer than laws governing how we protect our own bodies.

Who is at risk if I don't wear a helmet when riding my bike? I am. And I alone. If the Vancouver City Council has any respect for the mental capacity of their city's residents, they'll strike this law down.

But given the state of local politics in Washington, don't hold your breath.