If the best you can do is add a secondary charge to those already aimed at a criminal, you haven't really accomplished much. You have not made it harder for the criminals to operate, although you have made life more difficult for law-abiding citizens (and, per prior posts, law-abiding foreigners).
I'm not certain that the secondary charge will be very effective: "Your honour, I asked my good friend, Juan, if I might borrow his cell phone for a couple of days. Being a good friend, Juan said 'yes'". Unless it is illegal to lend a phone to a friend, getting around this dodge might be hard.
If "fair" means that the clowns who slacked off in school, spending their time partying and doing drugs, now make little more than minimum wage while those of us who worked hard make a good living, then I'm all for "fair". Too often, those who tout "fair" do not consider that one's current situation is heavily affected by one's previous decisions. I feel no moral responsibility to compensate for the problems you have caused yourself.
In the first place, it violates the second law of thermodynamics. That ought to be sufficient argument against it.
Entropy is reversed by doing work, which is what life does, by transforming energy (pumping heat).
Fair enough, but if the work is the genesis of life, there is no life available to do the work. Your argument is circular.
Beyond all that, there are no known examples of intermediate species. Considering how much evolution must have occurred (if we assume evolution to be correct) there ought to be scads of intermediate forms walking the planet today. Where are they?
walking around, those that were not out-competed and failed to adapt.
Care to point out a few (or one)? The amount of steps required to result in all the species on earth would require a vast number of intermediate forms. There is no reason that there should not be a host of intermediate forms now.
The rate at which a disease spreads through a corn field is a precise measurement of the speed of blight.