Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Safe Enough?

In an edi­to­r­ial that news­pa­pers across the US (includ­ing the Hous­ton Chron­i­cle, where it made the front page), mis­tak­ing it for a news story, picked up and pub­lished, AP edi­tor Lisa Benac leads off with:

We are safer, but not safe enough.

The first part, if true, is a fact. The sec­ond part is a) an opin­ion that b) is con­tro­ver­sial and c) is wrong. (You see, news­pa­per edi­tors, how easy it is to tell the dif­fer­ence between fact and opin­ion? (a) and (b) are facts; (c) is my own opinion.)

Is it true that we are safer now than we were on Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001? Back in 2004 it was not true: more (“non-combatant”) Amer­i­cans were killed by ter­ror­ists in the three years after 9/11 than in the three years before. But in 2009 the US saw 23 “civil­ian” casu­al­ties from ter­ror­ism, and in 2010 saw 24; those num­bers are lower than in 2000, 2002, or 2003, but higher than in 1998 and 1999. (2009 and 2010 num­bers come from the Depart­ment of State’s Coun­try Reports on Ter­ror­ism; 1998–2003 num­bers come from Pat­terns of Global Ter­ror­ism. Num­bers for inter­ven­ing years are not eas­ily teased out. All of the num­bers are small com­pared to, say, casu­al­ties from tobacco, alco­hol, or motor-vehicle acci­dents.) Whether we count mil­i­tary casu­al­ties or con­sider them mere can­non fod­der, it’s not clear whether we are safer or not.

U.S. Non-Combatant / Civil­ian Ter­ror­ism Casu­al­ties
Year Killed
1998 12
1999 6
2000 23
2001 2689
2002 27
2003 35
2004  
2005  
2006 56
2007 19
2008 33
2009 9
2010 15

Sta­tis­tics and epi­demi­ol­ogy might tell us if we are safer, but the sam­ple is very small, and sta­tis­tics and epi­demi­ol­ogy would go out the win­dow with one major attack. Regard­less of how slip­pery the answer to the ques­tion, “are we safer” is, though, there is an answer.

But: are we safe enough? This is the stuff of pro­pa­ganda. Whether we are safe enough deter­mines whether we will act. “Safe enough” means not that we are per­fectly safe, but that any increase in safety is not worth its cost. If we aren’t safe enough, we must do more to be safe. “Doing more to be safe” from the threat of ter­ror­ism means requir­ing the gov­ern­ment to do more to make us safe.

Life is dan­ger­ous. It is almost invari­ably fatal. Some U.S. mor­tal­ity sta­tis­tics, to try to put things into perspective.

Here are the top 15 U.S. mech­a­nisms (the CDC calls them “causes,” but I use “mech­a­nisms” to dis­tin­guish them from the under­ly­ing causes I will dis­cuss below) of death in 2007:

  1. Heart dis­ease: 616,067
  2. Can­cer: 562,875
  3. Stroke (cere­brovas­cu­lar dis­eases): 135,952
  4. Chronic lower res­pi­ra­tory dis­eases: 127,924
  5. Acci­dents (unin­ten­tional injuries): 123,706
  6. Alzheimer’s dis­ease: 74,632
  7. Dia­betes: 71,382
  8. Influenza and Pneu­mo­nia: 52,717
  9. Nephri­tis, nephrotic syn­drome, and nephro­sis: 46,448
  10. Sep­ticemia: 34,828
  11. Sui­cide (a man­ner of death, rather than a mech­a­nism): 34,598
  12. Chronic liver dis­ease and cir­rho­sis: 29,165
  13. Essen­tial hyper­ten­sion and hyper­ten­sive renal dis­ease: 23,965
  14. Parkinson’s Dis­ease: 20,058
  15. Assault (homicide—also a man­ner of death): 18,361

Obe­sity was asso­ci­ated with 111,909 excess deaths in 2000.

The lead­ing causes of death in the U.S. in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and phys­i­cal inac­tiv­ity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alco­hol con­sump­tion (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were micro­bial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehi­cle crashes (43,000), inci­dents involv­ing firearms (29,000), sex­ual behav­iors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000).

In 2000, there were 54 bee sting deaths in the United States. There are about as many fatal attacks by pet dogs every year in the United States as there are U.S. civil­ian deaths from ter­ror­ism worldwide.

About 350 peo­ple die at the hands of police every year in the United States. All else being equal, as a U.S. cit­i­zen you are ten times as likely to be killed by a police offi­cer than by a ter­ror­ist. (All else is not equal: none of the U.S. ter­ror­ism deaths of the last decade occurred in the U.S.)

Ter­ror­ism deaths are dif­fer­ent than the medical-condition-related deaths in that we might be made safer from dis­ease with­out giv­ing up free­dom. For exam­ple, thou­sands of obesity-related deaths might be averted if the U.S. Gov­ern­ment, in its food-related pro­pa­ganda, aban­doned the pre­tense that it is fat, rather than car­bo­hy­drates, that makes us fat.

Ter­ror­ism falls under the cat­e­gory, “assault (homi­cide),” but we see it dif­fer­ently even than your garden-variety homi­cide. 2,606 mur­ders in Sep­tem­ber 2001 made more of an impres­sion on us than the hun­dreds of thou­sands of mur­ders in the years before or after. The Amer­i­can peo­ple have long been a will­ing, with a lit­tle coax­ing, to give up their essen­tial free­doms to be safe from mur­der­ers, but 9/11 ren­dered them down­right eager: “what­ever it takes!” they shout. To those who want the gov­ern­ment to do what­ever it takes to make us safer, we are not safe enough. The gov­ern­ment is not mak­ing it impos­si­ble for us to be killed by ter­ror­ists, and “highly, highly, highly unlikely” is just not good enough.

Why? Why do we want the gov­ern­ment to do “what­ever it takes” to pre­vent ter­ror­ists from killing us, but not to pre­vent heart dis­ease, can­cer, stroke, and chronic lower res­pi­ra­tory dis­eases (out­law tobacco, and save the equiv­a­lent of six­teen 9/11s every year)?

Ter­ror­ism deaths are dif­fer­ent than tobacco deaths, deaths from poor diet, deaths from alco­hol con­sump­tion, deaths from sex­ual behav­ior, or deaths from illicit use of drugs: indi­vid­u­als don’t choose to be vic­tims of ter­ror. Ter­ror­ism deaths are dif­fer­ent than deaths from micro­bial agents: we are not labor­ing under the delu­sion that we can scare away all the germs.

It’s hard to look at ter­ror­ism like we look at other causes of death because there are peo­ple out in the big bad world who, right now, want to see us and our chil­dren dead, and that is scary, espe­cially to a peo­ple who, for the most part, have never trav­eled the world. Ter­ror­ism is sui generis. Never mind that even doing their worst ter­ror­ists have never been able to cause a hun­dredth part of the deaths that tobacco causes every year, or a tenth part of the car­nage that car crashes cause.

When peo­ple like Benac opine that we are not safe enough, our papers print it as front-page news, and we eat it up. Because the world is a big, scary place, and math is hard.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

One Response to “Safe Enough?”

  1. Ric Moore says:

    …and that is why we have sex-offender lists. It makes peo­ple feel safe and puts a lot of peo­ple on pay­roll. It is a lie, when 90% of new offences are com­mit­ted by peo­ple not on the list and are peo­ple you know and trust, like fam­ily, friends of fam­ily and parental author­ity fig­ures like school teach­ers and priests. But, no one is going to jump up an tell you to be afraid of those most likely to abuse… no, here is a list of bad peo­ple for you to worry about. You don’t have to fear or be watch­ful of any­thing else …except the trans­fats on your plate.

    Thanks Mark, this entire day has made me uneasy. It just might be that the real ter­ror­ists don’t have tow­els on their heads. And, we’re miss­ing that point.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply