Social and Economical effects of Government Corruption

The effect of Corruption has many dimensions related to political, economic, social and environmental effects.  In political sphere, corruption impedes democracy and the rule of law. In a democratic system, public institutions and offices may lose their legitimacy when they misuse their power for private interest. Corruption may also result in negative consequences such as encoring cynicism and reducing interest of political participation , political instability , reducing political competition, reducing the transparency of political decision making, distorting political development and sustaining political activity based on patronage, clienteles and money, etc. In Social sphere, corruption discourages people to work together for the common good. Frustration and general apathy among the public result in a weak civil society. Demanding and paying bribes becomes the tradition. It also results in social inequality and widened gap between the rich and poor, civil strive, increased poverty and lack of basic needs like food, water and drugs, jealousy and hatred and insecurity. Government Corruption is a global phenomenon found in all countries – but

evidence shows it harms poor people more than others, stifles economic growth and diverts desperately needed funds from education, healthcare and other public services. An estimated one trillion US dollars get siphoned off through bribes every year according to the World Bank.

Residents of states with more Government Corruption may not only lose trust in political officials, but also have less trust in the general public, according to a new study by Sean Richey, an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University. Richey studied arrests of government officials in 50 states combined with 2002 through 2004 survey data of the American National Election Studies panel, which produces data on voting, public opinion and political participation.”Stories of political corruption are constantly in the media, and this research reveals that Governmental Corruption has large corrosive effects on civil society,” Richey said. “I find that increases in corruption in the period before the survey was taken leads to decreases in belief that Government officials and ordinary citizens are trustworthy. It was the first empirical test of this concept.” The findings show that people living in a state with more convictions for felony corruption from the previous two year period had a negative effect on generalized trust. The study also shows that people in the middle-aged generation and people who volunteer are associated with an increase in trust, while having conservative ideology and media usage correlate with decreased levels of trust.


Various micro-studies reviewed by the authors unmistakably suggest that the efficiency costs of corruption could be quite severe, as corruption may jack up the marginal tax rate of firms, decrease business activity, raise the marginal costs of public funds and render certain government projects economically unviable.

An interesting estimate of the efficiency costs due to distortion is the allocation of capital from state banks, the authors point out, citing a study that politically connected firms, defined as those with a politician on their boards, received 45-per-cent larger loans from government banks in spite of having a 50-per-cent higher default rates on these loans.


Effects and Causes of Local Police Breaking The Law

The ruling by the most senior judges in England and Wales says that the current police policy of indefinitely keeping DNA profiles of people arrested but never convicted is excessive and violates privacy rights. Chief constables have continued collecting the DNA profiles of everyone arrested, whether they are convicted or not, and keeping them indefinitely on a national database. This is despite a ruling by the European court of human rights more than three years ago that it was a breach of privacy rights. More than 200,000 new DNA profiles of innocent people have been added to the national police DNA database since the ruling that their blanket retention was unlawful in February 2008, bringing the total to more than 1.1 million.”It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further.”Two of the seven judges in the case dissented, saying the appeals should have been dismissed when Local Police Breaking The Law. The ruling was brought following an appeal by GC, who was released without charge after being arrested for a suspected assault on his girlfriend in 2007 and C, who was acquitted of rape allegations in 2009.Their requests for the DNA profiles and fingerprints to be destroyed were refused by the Met commissioner. The new legislation is going through parliament in the protection of freedoms bill proposed by the home secretary, Theresa May. If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules. 5 rules according police

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police. If you saw any Local Police Breaking The Law then inform the authority.

Rule #2 Don’t Secretly Record Police

In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)

Rule #3: Respond to “Shit Cops Say” 

When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.

Rule #4: Don’t Share Your Video with Police

If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)

Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested

Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen. Local Police Breaking The Law is the biggest problem in these day’s.

News, Uncategorized

What happened when local police breaking the law

The role of the police in the community is to enforce the laws that keep the community safe, yet in some incidences the police themselves break the law. Sunshine Coast police crime prevention officer Senior Constable Mark Reedman says it comes down to the situation.”Legally, we are exempt from most traffic offences if we’re in the execution of our duties.”Two of the things we can’t do is dangerous or drink driving.”He says each incident depends on the current circumstance.”We have a policy within the service dictated by our Commissioner and there’s policy there that covers exemption circumstances.”For example if we’re on mobile phones or talking on our hand held radios while driving, we could do that if we were doing it for operational reasons.”We could be about to execute a search warrant for a property and we know that our radio communication can be listened into, so we may use our mobile phone as we don’t want to advertise what we are doing.” Due to cases in the past, the laws for police have changed in the last few years.

The headlines lately have brought attention to an age old problem of what to do when police officers behave poorly or local police breaking the law when they are investigating a case.  In West Valley City, Utah, many drug related criminal prosecutions were dismissed because the police misconduct in investigating the crimes resulted in the prosecutors stating “we no longer believe we have sufficient credible evidence with which to obtain a conviction.”When an investigating police officer knowingly or inadvertently violates the law, it compromises the investigation and the case.  When evidence is gathered illegally, even if it proves that a person is guilty of committing a crime, it cannot be used in court.  This is called the exclusionary rule, and its intent is to motivate police officers to play by the rules, or have their efforts be wasted. If you are charged with a crime, and believe that the police officers may have broken the rules relating to properly gather evidence, give me a call.  For example, if police search your house or car without a warrant or permission, any evidence gathered is illegal.  Likewise, if you have been arrested and are interviewed without having your Miranda rights read to you, any statement you made was gathered illegally. When I review a client’s case, the first thing I look for is whether the evidence was gathered legally.  If I believe the officers didn’t follow the law, I file a Motion to suppress the illegal evidence.  I have been successful in State and Federal Courts in litigating Suppression Motions, getting evidence thrown out, and having my client’s cases dismissed.  Everyone should play by the rules, especially police officers, and when they don’t, there are consequences.