NYSE and Nasdaq suspend all off-hours trading. The security industry has seen a huge boom over the last ten years and charges exorbitant rates for their services on Purge night in much the same way that pyrotechnics companies can charge large amounts for their services on the 4th of July.
Known violent psychopaths, serial rapists, and other violent criminals are put into protective custody for the duration of the Purge. The general consensus is that the Purge is a bad idea. The costs and damage involved don't justify the 12 hours of freedom that a few psychopaths and criminals enjoy. The vast majority of people have intact senses of empathy. Even if it were legal for them to murder someone else, they wouldn't because of the empathy they feel for them. In the poorest of places, where the police don't ever go, there isn't any distinction between Purge days and non-Purge days.
Criminals may act with impunity and there isn't much anyone can do about it. Do you think everyone just has some deep-down rage that they would love to vent once a year by going on a murderous rampage? I imagine one in a thousand people would take the opportunity to go around killing people. I think that all the rational people, including law enforcement would be happy to man the streets voluntarily to protect against these people.
I think it would just be like martial law for one night. Even if it wasn't the government or the military manning the streets, companies would just employ security firms to do it so as to protect their businesses. There would probably be an increase in murders but they would be targetted. Also, considering everyone would be paranoid that night they would probably lock themselves away somewhere safe from their psychopathic spouses and greedy grandchildren.
Again, private security firms would outweigh those kind of threats. If literally every crime was unpunishable I think you would see a lot of cyber attacks that had been in waiting. A lot of scams and financial crime happening. Are all laws that apply to banks ignored? Without any restrictions, markets would probably collapse as all the big businesses try to break deals and screw each other over. There would be huge assaults on human rights as all sorts of illegal agreements would be made during the purge.
The Purge would rapidly turn into the "Not really a purge. Just because the government isn't enforcing laws doesn't mean that you can't do it yourself during that period.
Anarchists trying to take advantage of the Purge would be in a minority, and as a much higher risk population would die out quickly. There might be an elite criminal core that survives multiple Purges, but random criminals just going around trying to loot and shoot? Likely dead in at most. An entire industry would grow up around the Purge, but it would be around the protection aspect. You'd see corporations that offered "safe" towns and enforcement, as well as self-policing militia types think credit unions, but with guns and explosives.
Even if you don't live in a safe town, you'd probably pay each year to go hide in corporately protected bunkers for those 12 hours, along with your valuables. Regular corporations would shell up and hide. They'd also hire or support and train directly groups of mercenaries to attack other corporations during the Purge period.
This would have a relatively minor impact on businesses with defendable assets, but something like Starbucks might be in trouble because they have too many locations and it's too easy to take out their assets. You'd also see a lot of corporate espionage. Extremely important assets would be outsourced and stored out of country - I imagine Canada and Mexico would see a huge boon from the Purge.
You'd see a "Purge Insurance" business grow up. The rates would be obnoxiously high, but as long as they lasted through multiple Purges and paid out on time, they'd start getting business and could practically print money. The government will not be significantly impacted since they have the military to defend their important stuff and people.
There's no way an assassin is going to get the president or supreme court justices, for example. Negative economic impacts will be minimal. No one is going to be actively doing business or working on Purge day. There won't be trading going on, or hours for employees to be paid. Companies that attempted to not pay people would rapidly find their turnover increasing. Employees that stole would get blacklisted.
For example, people on the whole don't shoplift because if they get caught they'll be arrested. That's all very well, but would they be more likely to shoplift if the consequences of getting caught was that the store's security guard would take you out back and batter you with a pipe? So would there be a rash of shoplifting, if the stores remained open but well-staffed? Quite possibly not. On the other hand, the police on the whole don't conduct illegal searches because the case will be thrown out and they might be disciplined.
If they had 12 hours with no law then you can bet they'd want to spend the time busting down the doors of drug dealers and mob lawyers, taking everything they can get their hands on that could possibly be evidence, questioning the bad guys and their immediate family members rather more aggressively than is usually allowed, perhaps destroying exculpatory evidence in existing cases. Some lawyers might betray certain clients, where their professional responsibilities to them have been onerous but then, if the law doesn't apply does that necessarily mean you won't later be disciplined by a quasi-authority like a bar association?
Perhaps bailiffs would be collecting debts in ways the law wouldn't permit although that's a tricky one: if you're going to do that why not forget about debt collection and just take stuff? Landlords would evict undesirable tenants by force, that kind of thing. The press would break every court injunction and assuming civil as well as criminal law is suspended take libel risks they normally can't. Chemical plants would dump a year's worth of toxic waste in the river, assuming they can store that much.
Want to pay someone a bribe? Do it tonight. The people most likely to be out smashing windows are glaziers. In some cases your condition is ambiguous. If I fire someone on this night because of their membership of a protected class, then the following morning are they actually fired, or can they still bring action against me on the basis that their being fired is a continuing act and not a single action restricted to the hour period? Similarly, can I just declare this night that a contract I've signed is no longer valid and be done with it, or will it be right back in force the next morning?
The economic consequences of it being in general legally impossible to commit yourself to a contract that lasts beyond the next special night would be really profound no long-term loans, for a start , far more than those of a few murders and broken windows, but I'm not sure whether you expect that to be the case. Can my bank just keep all my money by zeroing my account that night? Or does the bank have a contract with me that will be enforced any other time of year to ensure they can't do that regardless of what silly games they play with numbers in their computer on the night itself?
The nature of the suspension of normal law matters. Murder is a crime that, for those few who want to commit it, the law is a major restraint. It's easy to kill someone and difficult to get away with it, so if you don't have to get away with it then those with murderous grudges will like their chances far more on this day than any other.
For example you might see a lot of people who have been acquitted of crimes or charges dropped in the past year, targeted by their victims or, even if they genuinely were innocent, by vigilantes.
On the other hand, the kind of person who might shoot up a school a isn't that fussed about being arrested and b will do it when the school is open, not at night, so won't be affected.
You also have a social signal that "the rules" aren't in force, which sometimes happens in the real world when the police lose control of a situation. As such, rioting, looting and general destruction might increase. But in a "normal" riot, those who wish to defend their property still feel restrained by the law even when the rioters don't.
In this situation, you might not just smash the window of a McDonald's restaurant to stick one in the eye of global capitalism or whatever reason if you know there's a guy in the restaurant who's been hired to shoot you if you do. Personally I'm not sure much would happen outside of certain socially-agreed "hotspots" where trouble would concentrate.
After all, if someone wanted to throw a brick through my window tonight and run away, then there's very little chance they'd be caught. So why would they be any more likely to do it on the special day? The people who want a rumble would all congregate in the town centre, or in a park somewhere. My windows would be pretty safe. As such, I don't think the economic consequences would be catastrophic, except from organisations capable of committing truly massive crimes like the toxic waste I mentioned above.
Note also that even if there's no legal repercussions, there would be social ones, and so many people would still feel constrained by an approximation of the law. The news the next day would be all-over pictures of people up to no good: if they smash up a shop they'll be barred from shops in retaliation, maybe fired from their jobs, and since the matter isn't sub judice there's nothing to restrain the press from reporting their names.
So you might even find that the streets are almost empty that night, and that simply being out marks you as a horrible person to be shunned.
There's no better time to murder your spouse, so people who don't trust those they live with are going to have a nervous time of it, but that's not an economic consequence. Final thought: I would really , really not want to be on the roads anyway.
Someone who wouldn't even dream of punching you in the face would run a red light through a pedestrian crossing given half a chance. The US of A would turn from a country of immigrants to a country of emigrants. An exodus of gigantic proportions would ensue, basically bringing economy to a halt. If Joe Average citizens need to fear that anything can happen to them, they will move to a place with sane laws. Hello Canada People fled countries in masses for much less. It hit their economy so hard, they came up with an insane wall to keep their population from draining.
Consider that GDR law was much less life threatening than the Purge and you have your answer derived from a historic event that actually happened! Do you think the relatives of people murdered during the purge would be satisfied that it was legal? Do you think vigilante revenge for purge activities would be confined to the next purge?
I don't think so. The purge also destroys conventional politics. Suddenly every pressure group could become a terrorist group. You might be able to protect government officials, but what about other controversial public figures? Activists and union leaders? Opposition politicians? The US already has a problem with mass shootings, and you're proposing to legalize them?
Admittedly everyone will be hunkered down rather than concentrated in public places, apart from the groups of neighbourhood defence organisations manning the improvised barricades at the entrances to suburbs. Let's not forget the race relations.
You've re-legalized lynching. This will spark a set of riots comparable to the LA riots and the Ferguson riots and the Birmingham riots, in many major cities. People who feel threatened will start shooting at the rioters. The rioters will start shooting back, or at least burning down any building from which they suspect gunfire. You've also legalised the burning of churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. At the end of the purge, you're proposing to send in the army to restore civil order.
Do you think you can successfully restore order without any more deaths? Or indeed at all? Industrial crime will also give you lingering problems. David Basila George as George uncredited. Boima Blake Freak 1 as Freak 1 uncredited.
Nathan Clarkson Freak as Freak uncredited. More like this. Watch options. Storyline Edit. In an America wracked by crime and overcrowded prisons, the government has sanctioned an annual hour period in which any and all criminal activity-including murder-becomes legal.
The police can't be called. Hospitals suspend help. It's one night when the citizenry regulates itself without thought of punishment. On this night plagued by violence and an epidemic of crime, one family wrestles with the decision of who they will become when a stranger comes knocking. When an intruder breaks into James Sandin's Ethan Hawke gated community during the yearly lockdown, he begins a sequence of events that threatens to tear a family apart. Now, it is up to James, his wife, Mary Lena Headey , and their kids to make it through the night without turning into the monsters from whom they hide.
Reminder all emergency services will be suspended for a hour period during the purge. Rated R for strong disturbing violence and some language. Did you know Edit. Trivia Director James DeMonaco was asked why the film began with footage of multiple purges taking place outdoors - yet he opted to have all purging occur inside one family's home.
If he ever got a chance to do a second one, he vowed it would be more like Escape from New York Goofs For a while in the middle of the movie, James has a shaped goatee and moustache, which he does not have during the rest of the movie.
Quotes Mary Sandin : We are gonna play the rest of this night out in motherfucking peace. Connections Edited into Everything Wrong with User reviews Review. Top review. The Purge, great concept Humans have a natural instinct as predators to kill, but society forces us to repress these feelings by living in a ''civilized'' way Basically the reason why unemployment and crime is so low is because, for one night a year, a Purge occurs, where all crime murder, raper robbery, the whole lot is made legal, and no police or emergency services are allowed to interfere.
Unless there are special circumstances which mean that it is not appropriate to do so, you will be told the reasons for the decision to stop the case. Often the hardest decision can be to conclude that there isn't enough of a case to go to court, even where the public favour a prosecution.
The decisions made by the CPS are based on publicly available, clear and visible legal guidance. If a prosecutor decides not to bring charges against a suspect, discontinues proceedings or offers no evidence in a case, you have a right to request that we review that decision under the Victims' Right to Review scheme.
Details of how to request such a review can be found elsewhere in this section of the website. Once a charge has been brought the police will pass your file on to your local Witness Care Unit. They ensure that victims and witnesses are kept at the centre of the criminal justice system. The Witness Care Unit manages the care of victims and witnesses from the point of charge through to the conclusion of a case.
They are staffed jointly by representatives from the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Witness Care Unit will allocate you a dedicated witness care officer. Your witness care officer will act as your single point of contact and will keep you informed of the case's progress, from the point of charging the suspect, to sentencing or acquitting the defendant.
Your witness care officer will assess the needs of all victims and prosecution witnesses where defendants have pleaded not guilty. This helps to identify specific support requirements, such as childcare, transport, language difficulties, medical issues and to highlight areas of concern, for example if you feel that you may be subject to intimidation.
They will continuously review your needs throughout the duration of the case. They will also, along with volunteers from the witness service, provide practical and emotional support.
View victims and witnesses resources - these can be found at the bottom of the main Victims and Witnesses page. The majority of criminal cases are heard in a magistrates' court.
A very small percentage of cases are heard in the Crown Court. The CPS has launched an initiative called the Victims' Right to Review Scheme, which makes it easier for victims to seek a review of a CPS decision not to bring charges or to terminate proceedings.
If you are a victim seeking to exercise your right to request a review of a CPS decision not to bring charges, discontinue proceedings or offer no evidence in a case please visit the Victims' Right to Review page. Please note that the scheme applies only in relation to qualifying decisions made on or after the 5 June Help us to improve our website; let us know what you think by taking our short survey.
Contrast Switch to colour theme Switch to blue theme Switch to high visibility theme Switch to soft theme. Search for Search for. Top menu Careers Contact. Reporting a crime. Telling the police Investigating crime Victim's personal statement Intimidation Protecting Witnesses Decision to charge Keeping you informed Telling the police If you witness a crime you have a vital role to play in bringing the criminals to justice.
The criminal justice system can only work effectively with your help. There are several ways to report crime to the police: Emergencies : In an emergency you should phone and ask for the police Non-emergency situations : In non- emergency situations you should contact your local police station by phone or go to the nearest police station with a front desk Anonymous: If you wish to remain anonymous you can report a crime to Crimestoppers by phoning or by visiting www.
Giving a statement A witness statement is your written or video recorded account of what happened to you. Investigating crime Police investigations can take a long time. The difference between the police and the CPS The police : The police arrest and question, they gather evidence and take witness statements. Victim's personal statement In addition to giving a witness statement you can, if you want to, give a victim personal statement.
This allows you to include anything you have not said in your witness statement and could include the following: How the crime has affected you physically, emotionally or financially Whether you feel vulnerable or intimidated If you are worried about the defendant being given bail Whether you are considering claiming compensation Anything you think may be helpful or relevant The statement can be made at the same time as your witness statement and can be added to at any point before the court hearing.
Intimidation Witness intimidation is very rare. Find out more about the ONS Crime Surveys for England and Wales Protecting Witnesses There are a few ways to try and protect witnesses: Criminal and civil proceedings can be taken against the intimidators who could then face jail Specialist hand and security alarms can provide additional security In rare cases anonymity can be granted; and In very serious cases and extreme circumstances witnesses can be afforded witness protection and relocated to another part of the UK and even change their identity.
If you are worried about intimidation you should talk to the police. Find out more about witness protection and anonymity Decision to charge Once the police have completed their investigations, they ask us for advice on how to proceed. Role of the Crown Prosecution Service The Crown Prosecution Service CPS is the independent public authority responsible for prosecuting people in England and Wales who have been charged by the police with a criminal offence.
In undertaking this role we: Advise the police on cases for possible prosecution Review cases submitted by the police for prosecution in accordance with the principles in The Code for Crown Prosecutors Consider the alternatives to prosecution in appropriate circumstances Where the decision is to prosecute, determine the charge in all but minor cases Prepare cases for court Present those cases at court. The evidential test The prosecutor must first decide whether or not there is enough evidence against the defendant for a realistic prospect of conviction.
0コメント