Those who fear for their privacy, however, should bear in mind that privacy must dissipate regardless. Cameras, recorders, data storage, and communications devices of all description are becoming exponentially smaller, cheaper, and therefore omnipresent—with or without a truth machine.
If you believe, as I do, that having more people thinking about these issues helps, do talk about it. Give this book to friends. Or if you really liked the novel, send it to your senator or congressperson. (Mail me a copy of your cover letter c/o Ballantine and I’ll send you a personal thank-you note.) Whenever you’re in a bookstore or library, please ask the staff to check it out. Since there are thousands of other novels vying for attention, booksellers and librarians tend to be the most efficient advocates for books they like. And based on publisher surveys, I’m pleased to report that booksellers usually love The Truth Machine once they’re persuaded to read it.
You can also post your opinions on numerous Internet chat and newsgroups, including the Truth Machine Forum at: www.truthmachine.com
I’m grateful to anyone who completes all or part of the Reader Survey that follows. No need to sign it unless you wish. I read them all, and answer some. If the Reader Survey is missing from this book, please write to: The Truth Machine, c/o Ballantine Books, 201 E. 50th Street, New York 10022.
—J. L. H., March 1997
APPENDIX
AGE EQUIVALENCY TABLE (Ages are rounded to the nearest whole year and reflect appearance, vitality, general health, and remaining life expectancy.)
YEAR:
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
25
25
25
26
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
35
36
38
39
40
42
43
40
41
43
44
46
48
50
45
47
49
51
54
56
58
50
52
55
57
60
62
65
55
57
61
64
67
70
73
60
63
67
70
74
77
80
65
68
74
78
82
85
88
70
73
79
84
88
92
95
75
78
84
88
92
96
100
80
84
90
94
98
103
107
AVERAGE ADULT HEIGHT
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Male
5'9"
5'10"
5'11"
5'11"
6'
6'1"
6'2"
Female
5'4"
5'5"
5'6"
5'8"
5'9"
5'10"
5'11"
(Heights listed are for 35-year-old Americans and are rounded to the nearest inch.)
DOLLAR CONVERSION TABLE
Each year’s figure reflects $1,000 in present (2050) value after accounting for inflation.
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
$12
$14
$24
$46
$79
$115
$206
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
$386
$482
$558
$689
$821
$1,000
(All statistics have been calculated as of January 1; monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest even dollar.)
Travis Hall’s “Blackstone Address,” June 5, 1998
Sir William Blackstone, the great English jurist who compiled the Treatise of British Common Law upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States were based, once wrote: “It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.” What did Blackstone mean when he penned those words? How do you suppose he would have accounted for those innocent people certain to suffer at the hands of the 10 freed guilty persons? Have we been taking Blackstone’s words too literally?
Today we are at war. It is not a war waged against another country and fought on foreign shores. This armed conflict, far more dangerous than Vietnam was for my generation, is one we confront upon our own soil. Again, we are our own worst enemy.
In Vietnam our government had two sensible alternatives, neither of which were adopted. We could have admitted a limited defeat and withdrawn, while attempting to leave our South Vietnamese allies the means to defend themselves and negotiate reasonable terms of surrender. Or we could have set clear objectives, accurately determined what it would take to accomplish them, and committed all resources necessary to succeed. Instead, our leaders ventured an ill-fated compromise. They endeavored to win without properly judging or allocating the resources needed to win. Almost 60,000 of my fellow soldiers were needlessly killed and much of a generation was lost.
Are we making the same mistake now?
In our war against crime, I believe that once again we have two sensible choices, both better than the one we have chosen so far. As in Vietnam, it is the compromise between the two from which we languish. Drug cases overwhelm our police and our judiciary, making this war against violent crime impossible to win. Criminals congest our courts and well over a million Americans clog our prisons. Some can be rehabilitated but others will never be saved.
Our resources are finite and our will is in question. But there are two ways to rescue this generation. The first is to admit a limited defeat and thereby minimize our losses. We can legalize drugs, tax them heavily, and use the money for rehabilitation and education, both of which are far more cost-effective than deterrence. Then we can focus our efforts on fighting the remaining violent crime, a problem that will have been sharply diminished by the legalization and availability of drugs.
The second way is simply to stop tolerating violent crime. That would involve a top-to-bottom overhaul of our criminal justice system. It would mean going through a total cost-benefit analysis strictly from the point of view of the victims and potential victims of each type of crime. We would be forced to select the most efficient methods of removing criminals from our midst through rehabilitation, incarceration, or execution. It would mean farming out much of the prison system to private industry. And most likely it would mean putting many more violent criminals to death than we do today, without nearly as many expensive appeals or technical defenses. It might mean executing insane or retarded murderers simply because society cannot afford to keep them alive. It will result, on occasion, in the suffering of those innocents accused. But there would be far less s
uffering of the innocent under such a system than there is now.
Ladies and gentlemen, please keep one thing in mind as you journey into the realm of law. Everything we want from our government and our legal system has a cost. If we are really committed to saving this nation we must be prepared to pay the price. Due process, as we know it today, may be a luxury we can no longer afford.
Audrey Whitcomb Presidential Debate Summation, October 23, 2004
My fellow taxpayers. Violent crime is the scourge of our nation. But this scourge can be confronted in an enlightened, humanitarian way consistent with our national character. Please let us never forget who we are. We are the United States of America, the most powerful, the fairest, the most generous nation on earth.
Our crime problem stems from decades of neglect and misjudgment by politicians and bureaucrats, both Republican and Democrat. There is no easy solution, no overnight fix. We can overcome it only through careful attention and good sense. Our progress against poverty will soon start to diminish the crime rates—of that I assure you.
America’s future looks bright indeed. Just look at what we’ve accomplished over the past three Democratic presidential terms:
We’ve seen our national debt fall by 12 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Unemployment has been reduced from eight percent in 1992 to less than six percent today.
Fewer than 10 percent of our citizens live below the poverty level.
Homelessness, a plague of the 20th century, will be a memory within five years.28
We’ve prohibited health insurance companies from rejecting applicants because of pre-existing conditions. Now all American citizens can obtain private insurance regardless of their health, and as promised, administrative costs and premiums have actually fallen.
We’ve created more opportunities for young people, a sure way to reduce crime. Through the National Service Act, all teenage high school graduates who wish to go to college can pay for it with government service, or contract to pay a percentage of their future earnings. This privately administered program benefits both the economy and the students. It was introduced by a Democratic president, and to almost everyone’s surprise, has already booked a profit based on free market prices now bid for those future earnings contracts.
Here in America we have the best medical care, the best schools, the highest standard of living, the highest life expectancy. More than ever, we are the envy of the world.
Yes, we have crime, and it’s terrifying. But imagine what our crime problem would be with the same degree of poverty and economic despair we had years ago, at the end of the last Republican administration.
If you elect me, we’ll bring the same laser focus we applied to simplifying our crippling tax code to bear upon the problem of violent crime in America. But a Whitcomb administration won’t use violence as a means to end violence. The death penalty is no deterrent; it is retribution that only legitimizes violence. Swift and Sure requires executing up to 40 persons in the United States every single day. That’s over 14,000 human beings each year, most of whom could be rehabilitated to become useful members of society—and many of whom will be innocent of the crimes of which they’re convicted.
Even if we surrender and accept such injustice as a necessary evil—as a price we’re willing to pay to make our streets safer—still, Swift and Sure won’t work. Ultimately it will only make things worse.
In the past, Republican politicians assured us that their “Three Strikes and You’re Out” legislation would reduce crime. But Three Strikes worsened our crime problem. Can you really believe Swift and Sure will turn out any differently? We must never forget; easy solutions to complex problems create unintended consequences.
We all want a safer America. But don’t we also want to uphold the American tradition of opportunity, compassion, and fairness? It’s not too late. We can still have both.
Travis Hall Presidential Debate Summation, October 23, 2004
My friends, I wish I had Secretary Whitcomb’s patience. I admire her accomplishments. In a different time she could have been a superb president. But not today.
Today we need less patience and more resolve. I’d like to tell you one reason why I’m so impatient. Many of you know of my close friend Solomon Kurtz. I first met Sol at a town meeting 11 years ago in Hamden, Connecticut. He asked me some tough questions at that meeting; afterward I invited him to my hotel to continue our discussion and we became friends.
Sol’s politics were as liberal as they come, but that didn’t matter; anyone on my staff will tell you how much I admired him. He was a true humanitarian. He never made any real money for himself—in fact he barely got by, but always tried to help others. He selflessly raised money for three worthy charities and volunteered for them, usually 60 or 70 hours a week.
Two years ago, my dear friend was murdered, shot through the heart by a man trying to rob him. Sol wasn’t carrying any cash that night and it made the mugger angry. Solomon Kurtz wasn’t murdered over money—he was murdered out of spite.
The murderer, who had a long record of violent crime, was apprehended and convicted. The defense attorney for this cowardly criminal never denied his client had killed my friend. But he asked the court to consider his client’s alcoholic father and alleged abuse as a child. Solomon’s own childhood held similar nightmares, but Sol lived his life according to a higher standard. A good man was murdered and finally his killer was imprisoned for life.
But think about this: the projected cost of keeping a 26-year-old man in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life is over two million dollars. That’s your money. Couldn’t it be better spent improving the lives of those more deserving?
I’ve said I admire my opponent but I do disagree with her. She believes criminals who rob and rape and murder are entitled to the same rights and protection as law-abiding citizens. This view seems to suggest your life is no more valuable than the life of a criminal. Criminals may be victims too, but I’ve seen many victims respond to tragic circumstances without violence.
Secretary Whitcomb says the death penalty is not a deterrent—and she’s absolutely right! As a former Connecticut Attorney General, I admit the slow and unsure death penalty process of the past several decades has proven no deterrent at all. It’s barbaric torture to those waiting on death row and the legal cost of their appeals is absurd. It’s a travesty. Those funds should be available for education and enforcement, not legal expenses and imprisonment.
Those contemplating violent crime must know they’ll be caught and that their lives will never be the same. A person found guilty of any violent crime should get no more than one chance at rehabilitation. Swift and Sure still gives the criminal more consideration than those criminals give their victims. I believe the commission of a second violent crime requires execution, swiftly and surely. One fair trial and one quick appeal. No excuses. No delays.
Even experts commissioned by the Democrats concede that homicides and violent crimes will be cut in half if Swift and Sure is enacted. Those same experts project 14,000 executions per year. If they’re right, and I hope they’re not, it still seems a fair price to save almost 100,000 innocent lives.
Unlike our current death penalty, Swift and Sure efficiently promotes safety through deterrence. It will reallocate money now wasted on incarceration and legal wrangling and use it for rehabilitation and enforcement. Swift and Sure seeks neither revenge nor retribution, but does offer our best hope for victory in the war against violent crime.
The most compelling argument the Democratic party’s experts have offered is that about five percent of those executed won’t really be guilty of the crimes they’re convicted of. They may be right, but I have enough experience as a prosecutor to assure you the great majority of those so-called innocents are guilty of some other violent crime. Even so, for every one of those we wrongly execute, we’ll save the lives of at least 140 potential victims and the safety of thousands more. No system is perfect, but Swift
and Sure will deliver far better justice than we have now.
Do I care about violent criminals as human beings? Anyone who knows me knows I do. Most have suffered tragic lives. My heart aches over such wasted potential and I know our society is partially to blame. But most of us are productive, law abiding, responsible citizens. If you are, your government should care about your safety more than it cares about those who, for whatever reason, choose to break the law and trample on your right to a life free of their violence. If you elect us, we’ll put your rights ahead of the rights of criminals.
Description of LottoPick, discussed in Chapter 18, dated November 8, 2008.
At the time, 46 out of the 51 states29 operated lotteries. Each two-dollar ticket holder chose a group of numbers, for example: six different numbers from 1 to 50.
(Note: In this example, each ticket’s odds were 6/50 x 5/49 x 4/48 x 3/47 x 2/46 x 1/45, or approximately 1 in 15.89 million.—22g CP)
Then at a weekly drawing, six numbers out of the 50 would be selected at random, and tickets with all six would split a multimillion dollar prize. Every ticket had an equal chance of winning a share of the main prize. But not all tickets had the same chance to win the entire jackpot, a subtle but important difference.
LottoPick was an interactive system that chose a series of numbers for the lottery ticket buyer, instantly eliminating that series from the field of available future picks. It also analyzed patterns of commonly selected numbers and excluded them from its repertoire. LottoPick thereby assured lottery ticket buyers that, in the improbable event their ticket won, they’d be less likely to have to split the prize.
The Truth Machine Page 37