CommenTerry

Protecting Yourself from Mail Fraud

The day begins like any other normal day. You go to work, perform your tasks, and head home, just as normal. When you open your mailbox t o retrieve the day's mail, you notice an odd little envelope from an unrecognized address. Curious, you open it. Inside sits a check in your name for $5,000! Incredulous, you turn the cover letter over to read, "Congratulations, you have just won the lottery in Liberia!"

Ecstatic, you call your spouse and run to the bank. You read the rest of the letter at the stoplights on the way, realizing that you have to send a fee to the lottery company for handling the check. The fee is small, only a portion of your winnings, so you eagerly wire it and cash your check. You are on your way to the electronics store for that new big-screen TV you have been wanting, when the bank calls. There is a problem with your check. It is fraudulent. Not only do you have no money in your pocket, but the money you transferred to the "company" is also gone for good. You have just fallen victim to mail fraud!

If this has not happened to you, it probably will someday. Mail fraud schemes are becoming more and more common, and they take on a variety of different scenarios. The only way to protect yourself from mail fraud is to learn to recognize it.

What Is Mail Fraud?

Mail fraud is a crime that occurs when someone tries to use the United States mail system to promote fraudulent activities, usually with the intention of taking money from someone else. This is a crime, which is punishable by fines and jail time. Because the crime will be prosecuted if it occurs in the U.S., many people who send out these fraudulent letters are from other countries. This makes it difficult to track down the scam artist if you fall prey to one of these schemes.

Defining mail fraud according to the type of letter sent is difficult because of the number of schemes out there. Almost all of them seem "too good to be true," offering you some sort of reward in return for a small favor or fee. In the example, the reward was lottery winnings in a lottery you never entered. Sometimes it is an inheritance, get rich quick scheme, or "perfect" work from home opportunity. Some scammers will even pull on your heart strings and try to collect money for someone who is suffering, when there is, in fact, no victim to support.

Protect Yourself by Doing Research

If you receive something in the mail that seems questionable, but could end up being a great benefit to your family if it is real, proceed with caution. Go online and research the company or address that the letter came from. You may have fallen on something legitimate, but you need to be sure. If you cannot find any information, you are likely working with a scammer. A letter about a real inheritance, for instance, is going to come from an attorney, and you will be able to find more information about that attorney.

Take Some Time to Think

If you are receiving a "reward" for a contest, stop to think for a moment. Did you enter the contest? Is the contest even legal? You cannot play foreign lotteries from America, so that letter saying "someone entered your name and you won!" is lying.

If you are looking at a letter about possible work from home opportunity that promises you will make millions with little effort, stop and think. Is it really possible to make millions without working? Yes, but only if you inherit the money or get incredibly lucky in the stock market. There are legitimate work from home opportunities out there, but they require work, and you will be able to find information about them online.

Yes, you could protect yourself by never giving out your address, but this is not always practical. You may need to order something online or provide your address for verification on a website. You should use caution as to the places you give out your address, but the bottom line is that the best way to protect yourself from mail fraud is to use some common sense. Scammers take advantage of the emotion and excitement that comes from opening something and seeing a great surprise inside. Before you get swept away by those emotions, research the opportunity. This will save you the heartache that comes after falling victim to mail fraud.

Is Piracy Really the Same as Stealing?

The movie and music industries like to compare the piracy of their products to the stealing of physical items like DVDs, CDs, and tapes. But is it really the same? While I don't condone piracy or illegal downloading or copying of any kind, I just don't think this comparison is all that valid.

The major flaw in their logic is their apparent assumption -- a real stretch, in my opinion -- that anyone who pirates a movie or song would have bought it legitimately, had they not been able to pirate it. Therefore, according to their logic, every movie or song that is pirated represents a loss of revenue.

I don't believe this is the case at all, as I doubt that more than 20% of those who do this kind of illegal downloading or copying would otherwise buy the items in question. Most of these people are simply "freebie hunters" who will eagerly take any of these items they can get for free, but would never buy any of them.

There's one other thing that makes pirating a bit different from stealing physical items, even if we assumed that every act of piracy resulted in a lost sale. Physical items are purchased and stored by retailers. The majority of the price of an average retail item is derived from its cost. Most of the remainder comes from overhead items like rent, employees' salaries, insurance, etc. Only a small portion of the retail price represents some potential profit. When that item is stolen, it is a direct loss to the retailer. It was something he or she had to pay for and now has nothing to show for it. In addition, the rent, salaries, and insurance still have to be paid.

On the other hand, piracy (sticking with our assumption) results only in lost sales. No one is having something they paid for confiscated or taken away from them. Even for the retailer, it usually just means that he or she won't be stocking as many of the items that are being pirated. Of course, it may also mean that some items already bought and stocked will never be sold for the desired price. But these items can always be dumped somewhere -- on EBay, if nowhere else -- at bargain-basement prices.

My Ranking of Crimes by Seriousness

Almost everyone has their own idea of which crimes are the most heinous and how they would rank them by seriousness, and I’m no exception. Therefore, I have decided to give it a shot. However, this exercise is not as easy as it would seem at first blush. I doubt that any two people would come up with identical rankings or pecking orders. Accordingly, I’m quite sure that everyone will find something on my list to pick apart.

This is in no way an attempt to provide an exhaustive list of every possible crime or illegal activity, as it is a just a representation of most major categories of crime. If something is not on this list, it does not necessarily imply that I think it is okay or should be legal. In addition, some things, ex., terrorism, gang violence, and rioting, were intentionally left off, as they are covered under others that are listed.

Anyway, here goes:

1. Murder

2. Voluntary manslaughter

3. Malicious wounding/Assault with a deadly weapon

4. Sodomy of a child **

5. Other forms rape/sexual intercourse with a child **

6. Forcible sodomy (teen) **

7. Other forms of rape (teen) **

8. Forcible sodomy (adult) **

9. Other forms of rape (adult) **

10. Felony assault and battery/Aggravated assault

11. Attempted murder without bodily harm (ex., shooting at someone and missing)

12. Abduction/Kidnapping without bodily harm

13. Armed robbery

14. Molestation* of child under age 10 **

15. Molestation* of child between 10 and 12 **

16. Molestation* of teenager between 13 and 17 **

17. Production or financing of child pornography **

18. Sexual assault* of an adult **

19. Child endangerment

20. Blackmail/Extortion

21. Arson

22. Manufacture/Distribution/Smuggling/Sales of illegal drugs

23. Treason

24. Burglary/Home invasion

25. Threatening/Menacing/Stalking/Intimidation

26. Identity theft

27. Fraud/Bunco/Scamming

28. Grand theft (unarmed)

29. Vandalism

30. Involuntary manslaughter/Negligent homicide

31. Child neglect/abandonment

32. Drunk driving

33. Consensual sex with teen between 13 and 15

34. Misdemeanor assault and battery

35. Political/Public corruption

36. Tax evasion

37. Prison/Jail escape

38. Unlawful flight/Bail jumping/Failure to appear in court

39. Simple assault

40. Providing alcohol to a minor

41. Entering the country illegally

42. Petit (petty) theft

43. Consensual sex with teen between 16 and 17 (in places where it’s illegal)

44. Resisting arrest (active only; passive should not be a crime)

45. Disorderly conduct

46. Contempt of court

47. Providing tobacco products to a minor

48. Aggressive/Reckless driving

49. Indecent exposure/Public lewdness

50. Driving without a license or on a suspended license

51. Simple possession of illegal drugs

*Actions that do not rise to the level of forced sodomy or other forms of rape. Includes unwanted sexual advances such as inappropriate touching, fondling, and kissing.

** Perpetrator should have to register as sex offender

Why Polanski Should Not Go to Prison

This past weekend, acclaimed movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a 31-year-old warrant issued against him by Los Angeles prosecutors. The warrant resulted from an incident in 1977, when Polanski allegedly drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at the home of actor Jack Nicholson.

After he was charged in 1978, the Los Angeles prosecutor at that time reached a plea bargain with Polanski. The agreement called for Polanski to submit to mandatory counseling and treatment, but no prison time was included. However, when the judge indicated that he was not bound by this agreement and that he would still consider imposing prison time, Polanski fled to France prior to his sentencing.

He had resided mainly in France ever since (with occasional trips to Israel and other countries), never returning to the U.S. for fear of being arrested on the outstanding warrant. He recently entered Switzerland to receive an award for his film directing. He is now being held there by Swiss authorities as he fights extradition to the U.S.

Most Americans believe Polanski should be sent back to the U.S. to face the music, i.e., spend time in prison, for his crime. I respectfully disagree. I believe he should either be let go or brought back to the U.S. with a guarantee that the outcome stipulated by his plea agreement will be honored. No, I’m no fan of a creep like Mr. Polanski, but there are several reasons why I feel that he should not spend time behind bars.

First, the victim, who is now 45, says the incident did not traumatize her nearly as much as the efforts to prosecute Polanski have. In addition, she says she cannot move on until or unless Polanski is off the hook. Should she be punished in order to punish Polanski? Hasn’t she already suffered enough?

Second, she has long since forgiven Mr. Polanski.

Third, although he did flee after pleading guilty, he had good reason to believe the judge was going to renege on the plea deal and send him to prison for many years. What we need to realize is that the original plea agreement had been negotiated expressly for the purpose of making things easier on the victim, not out of any sympathy for Polanski.

Also, contrary to popular opinion, Polanski never admitted to rape (although there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that this is the crime he actually committed) – he pleaded guilty to a single count of having sexual relations with a minor. Had he pleaded guilty to rape, he would not and should not have gotten a deal that included anything less than 20 years in prison.

But you may be thinking: Ah, but that constitutes statutory rape – isn’t that technically the same thing as rape? Well, no. Statutory rape and actual rape are two different animals. Statutory rape is based on an arbitrary age of consent set by statute (hence the name), which can be different from country to country and state to state. For example, in most U.S. states, the age of consent ranges from 16 to 18, whereas it is 14 in Canada. Therefore, consensual sex with 14-year-old, which would be perfectly legal in Canada, would be a felony in most U.S. states.

Interestingly enough, in Biblical times, people were considered adults at the age of 12. Many theologians even surmise that Mary was around this age when she gave birth to Jesus and married Joseph (who was apparently much older) a short while later. Who would have the gall to accuse God of selecting a child to bear His Son? Should we call Joseph a pedophile? All the recent outrage about Polanski’s 13-year-old victim being a “child” is totally foreign to Biblical teachings. Indeed the definition of age of consent has always been determined by culture.

Now actual rape, on the other hand, is almost universally recognized as the act of forcing someone (man, woman, or child – it doesn’t matter) to engage in sex against their will. That doesn’t vary a whole lot from culture to culture and has remained pretty much the same down through the centuries. Again, while no one doubts that Polanski committed actual rape, that is not what he pleaded guilty to.

Fourth, Polanski long ago reached an out-of-court settlement (for an undisclosed amount of money) with the young lady as a result of a lawsuit she filed against him.

Fifth and finally, this case is more than 30 years old. It’s time to for all of us to move on. More importantly, though, it’s time to let victim get on with her life. 

What to Do with the Hofstra False Accuser?

What do you think should happen to Danmell Ndonye? She is the Hofstra University freshman who recently accused five men of gang-raping her. However, she later recanted her story when one of them provided a video that proved her sexual encounter with him to be consensual.

Had it gone undetected, her lie could have ruined the lives of five innocent individuals. They would likely have been convicted of rape, sentenced to long prison terms, and spent the rest of their lives branded as sex offenders.

And that’s not to mention the harm she may have done to future victims of real rape. When those women are viewed suspiciously or are not taken seriously, Danmell Ndonye will be partially responsible. They would have every right to point a finger of blame squarely at her.

So, should Ms. Ndonye have to suffer the consequences of her actions? I think justice demands it. Martha Stewart spent five months in a federal prison for lying to investigators about a mere stock trade. The lie she told was virtually inconsequential but for the possible loss of a few investment dollars. A little bit of money can’t even be compared to the value of someone’s freedom and good name.

If we are going to give a person five months for lying about money, then, by all rights, we should give Ndonye a life sentence for what she did. But I think there’s some room for mercy here. Two years behind bars contemplating the damage she did (and could have done) should be enough to elicit some genuine contrition and persuade her to walk the straight and narrow from then on.
 

Scary Vigilante Justice

It troubles me that many otherwise decent and well-meaning people seem to favor a little vigilante justice under certain circumstances. But it scares the heck out of me when I come across an extremely intelligent and well-educated person who feels this way. A case in point was a recent guest on Bill O’Reilly’s popular primetime show on the Fox News Channel. Here we had a gentleman with a Ph.D. who seemed to approve of the brutal beating of a fleeing rape suspect by an angry mob.

To his credit, O’Reilly confronted this man about his apparent sanctioning of vigilante-style activity. Even O’Reilly, a stern law-and-order advocate, can see that tolerating any kind of vigilantism is a slippery slope toward a dangerous system of justice – one in which people are no longer presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In fact, when O’Reilly raised that very concern, his guest merely blew it off by stating that he “knew” the alleged rapist was guilty of raping several women and a child, and therefore his attackers had every right to chase him down and beat him with a stick even though he was unarmed.

Yeah, no need to waste time and money on a trial when you know for sure someone is guilty. Just round up a posse to take them out somewhere and beat the crap out of them, or even kill them if their crime is serious enough. If that kind of mentality doesn’t scare you, then maybe you should consider moving to China, Iran, or North Korea.

But even some people who would never go along with the forfeiture of lawful trials in favor of street vigilantism still seem to be okay with a different type of vigilante justice – one performed by prison inmates. A disturbingly large number of people apparently wink at the notion of prison inmates brutalizing certain types of criminals.

This is unacceptable. Just as the courts must determine guilt, they must also be the sole determiners of how a guilty person’s punishment will be meted out. When it is decided on and/or applied by anyone else, the result is nothing more than another form of dangerous vigilantism. 

Beware of Yet another Internet Danger

It's dangerous to use the Internet as means of meeting strangers for sexual trysts – now in more ways than one. Rumor has it that, in a rural Virginia county, someone has recently been charged with attempting to set up a sexual rendezvous with a minor, even though there was not a minor involved and no one even claiming to be one.

According to the story, a 44-year-old man had hooked up with what he thought was a 35-year-old woman. However, when he went to meet her at the agreed-upon venue, he was met by three cops who promptly arrested him. As it turned out, the person he had been chatting with was actually an undercover female police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl pretending to be a 35-year-old woman.

However, the officer admits to never having claimed to be a 14-year-old girl during her discussions with the “suspect.” So why is he still in trouble? Police, along with local commonwealth’s attorney (that’s what they have in Virginia instead of district attorneys), claim that the man should have asked his potential sex partner if she was really a minor, despite the fact that she told him she was 35.

Like I said, this is just a rumor for which I have, so far, not been able to find any corroborating evidence or independent confirmation. Most of the people with whom I have discussed this either do not believe it or think the state would not a have snowball’s chance in you-know-where of successfully prosecuting this case.

However, I beg to differ. Stranger things have happened, and many people have been prosecuted and sent to jail for the silliest of reasons. In addition, there is no shortage of prosecutors (with plenty of cops doing their bidding) who care only about advancing their careers, even if that means kowtowing to overzealous child protection advocates.

Just something to think about the next time you entertain ideas about cruising the Net for your next sexual conquest.

A Crime Akin to Murder

There is an atrocity that I believe to be nearly as heinous as murder. That crime is forced sodomy. No man, woman, or child should ever have to suffer from such a brutal act. In fact, when the men of Sodom and Gomorrah even attempted such a thing against some visitors, it was the final straw in God’s decision to destroy those two cities with fire and brimstone.

Therefore, we should have zero tolerance for such a thing as well. Anyone convicted of it in a court of law should get an automatic sentence of life behind bars with no chance of parole. Anyone found guilty of this crime while in prison should have his sentence automatically extended to life without parole. If he is already serving such a sentence at the time, then he should be relegated to spend the rest of his natural life in solitary confinement.

Death Penalty Not Justified for California Wildfire

A California man was recently sentenced to death after being found guilty of first degree murder for setting a wildfire that killed five firefighters. But the death penalty makes no sense in this case. He should have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter or perhaps second degree murder at most. The conviction and sentence he got don’t seem to match the crime. Sure, five people lost their lives, but that was not the intent of this man’s crime.

As a general rule, people who commit arson are not prosecuted for first degree murder unless they set a fire with the express intent to kill someone. For example, if someone burnt your house down, knowing you were in it at the time and it resulted in your death, one would expect that person to be charged with first degree murder and possibly be eligible for the death penalty.

However the man who set that wildfire in California had no way of knowing whether it would result in someone’s death. Obviously, he knew there was chance it would kill someone and he set it anyway. But that’s reckless disregard for human life, not premeditated murder. This kind of recklessness, when it results in a death, usually carries some kind of manslaughter charge, as well it should.

The arsonist in this case will obviously appeal his sentence, if not his conviction as well. I’m not sure what his chances would be of getting his conviction overturned, but I’m pretty confident that his sentence will be tossed out and replaced by something a little more apropos, like 15-20 years behind bars. The judge – shame on him if he did – apparently allowed the emotional testimony of the firefighters’ families to influence his decision in imposing the death sentence. That’ll be additional fodder that can be used in the appeal of this unjust sentence.

Is it Okay for Police to Lie?

For a long time, police and other law enforcement officials have utilized the tactic of lying to or otherwise deceiving suspects and persons of interest. They are generally allowed to do this with impunity. However, when anyone is caught lying to a police officer, he or she is subject to stern prosecution. That doesn’t seem right to me. Lying is either okay or it’s not. It’s either right or it’s wrong.

It amazes me that some of the folks who are the most vocal about decrying situational ethics have no problem with police lying as a routine part of their “jobs.” Shame on these people! Of course, they will claim that if all the cumulative lying ever done by police officers helps get even one bad person off the streets, then it is justified.

I’m sorry, but I do not believe that any end, no matter how desirable, ever justifies dishonest means. But, then again, perhaps there are some rare exceptions when law enforcement offers must lie to dangerous thugs in order to protect innocent people from imminent physical harm, but those cases would be few and far between.

But if we are going to allow police officers to lie at other times, then those to whom they lie should be allowed one free lie (to the cops) for each of those incidents. That would only seem fair and equitable to me.