I never said I liked "checkpoints" per se, I personally would have rather not waited where I was stopped, but I saw one rickety car pull off the road per the cops instruction, and I saw a kid get out that looked like he had been in a mugshot or two.
In other words, it's something that we have to put up with right now because it can help curb crime, and we have to do what we can to curb crime. You know, before all those decisions of the Warren Court which created a bunch of rights out of thin air for criminals we had alot less crime in this country. I wonder why crime rose after the Warren Court, why would crime rise after we made things easier for criminals. The guy who shot at Roosevelt in 1933 was executed about a month after the attempt, as opposed to today, where someone on death row gets 20 years to get ACLU lawyers to plead his case, etc.
You answered your own question... The reason there is more crime, is because "we" became soft on crime.
Now, to answer your next question, I'll use the your previous question... "How do we stop criminals??" Become hard on crime again. Not checkpoints. The next person caught with drugs, send them to prison for life. Next one caught murdering someone? Administer the death penalty within 30 days. Tell the ACLU to go piss up a rope.
You don't get hard on crime by illegal search and seizure. You don't get hard on crime by saying all are guilty until proved innocent. You don't get hard on crime by setting up road blocks and searching everyone who goes through. That is stupid, and you'll only catch the morons. Do you REALLY think an organized operation would send a courier, on a route that has not been reconned?? I think not... these cops are setting up these checkpoints, because it is easy to nail morons. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
The real criminals, would know that checkpoint is there, and go around.
Checkpoints are a fraction of a step away from dismissing the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Just incase you're not totally clear on the verbiage, I took the liberty of posting it below...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As far as the guy who "looks" like he has been in a mug shot or two, again, I am amazed at your outlook. You really think Blue collar crime outweighs White collar crime? I got news for you. there are more white collar criminals, than there is low life's to which you think have been dominating LEO scrap books.
"Your Papers Please" is totalitarian. No other explanation is acceptable...
Crime is lower now than decades ago, IIRC. That's violent crime. Now, there are all kind of "crimes" never dreamt of then.
The government doesn't want to curb crime. The government wants to use crime as an excuse to usurp more powers from the citizenry. Going after real criminals is dangerous. Much safer to go after law-abiding citizens.
The ACLU opposed the execution of Stanley Williams, a murderous thug whose doubt was established beyond a shadow of a doubt, and yet last I checked has said nothing about Cory Maye, a man who shot someone who had broken into his apartment and was entering his daugher's room, not realizing the person was a cop (Cory Maye is currently seeking to appeal his death sentence)
If the government were to actually focus its law-enforcement efforts against criminals, and encourage the citizenry to assist in its fight against them, crime would be greatly reduced. But that would empower the citizenry--not the government.
What does Scrushy look like? Do you think he is innocent? What's the neighborhood he lives in like?