i just realised why this forum is called mass debate
because every thread is wank
The difference between detainment and arrest is time period and evidence.
An officer can detain somebody for a few minutes to ask them a few question if they're suspicious, without needing to inform them of their rights and such.
An arrest is when they're forcibly taken to a new location and put into custody, unable to leave.
It has nothing to do with a charge.
And Jesus Christ GenPol, your only defense is screaming "STRAW MAN" or "CHERRY PICKING", instead of actually providing evidence for your claims.
I don't think there's any problem hypothesizing in itself; lots of important discoveries start off as purely hypothetical. The main problem with this hypothesis isn't that it's not been instantiated and observed to be true or not, it's just that it's so incredibly unmotivated, unfounded and loathsome. It's a matter of historical fact that so much infringement of rights, and such a deep level of coercion, is hugely damaging to society, and I don't see how anyone can support anything that so obviously contains a repugnant level of coercion.
For instance a teacher who was told by a pupil about a crime done to him has an obligation to report that crime to social services and the police depending on the crime.
A broad obligation to report crimes would be against the merits of criminal law, as it would actually make it harder to solve crimes.
What you're proposing is an insanely stupid system that's just broken on so many levels it's not funny. Are you seriously adding in an option to escape fines for the first 10% - who even thinks up stupid hell like that.
Sorry but you're digging yourself into an even bigger and stupider position as you go on. You're essentially creating a situation that's a bigger danger to society than almost any amount of crimes commited inside of that society. Since it's going to lead to an escalation in retribution inside of communities and lead really brutal problems.
Ever heard of the french revolution. And how a state system that was incredibly punishment happy resulted in a growth of it being used in intrapersonal feuds. Strong, broad and fast punishments did lead to less punishments overall, it instead lead to a society that was tearing itself apart with thanks to and due to the use of the inherently broken justice system.
Again, you're proving that you have utterly no idea about the justice system at all, nor about human psychology or history for that matter. A state should exist to clean up intrapersonal relations and bring them down to a civil level and protect certain interests. What you're proposing does the very opposite on almost all accounts.
-- By the way, in case you missed it, I've used historical evidence once more. A second good example are various authoritarian systems which often included similar clauses and rewarded snitching on people inside of your own community and similar things. After a while it led to an atmosphere of distrust, hate, broken down relationships inside of communities and led to an alienation of humans between each other.
I don't know from what nation you are, but you seem to believe similar means have never been used before. The truth is, that you aren't the first with this kind of idea and we generally know what it leads to.
Haha wow he's gone now for a completely different reason than I would have expected.
(User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of permabanned user GenPol" - JohnnyMo1))
They pulled the same exact shit during the Salem Witch trials. Take a guess as to how many were actually witches.