Criminals in America
Feb 28, 2008
Granted, there are a lot of people who need to be in prison, but most will end up coming out and if the root causes for crime are not addressed most will continue to victimize their communities and go back to prison so why not make an investment up front so you don’t have to pay for it later?
I don't know what "investment" he is talking about but I can guess that it won't at all be voluntary for the citizens.
Anyway, what exactly are those "root causes"?
"Root causes" is a leftist shibboleth with two purposes: the nullification of a conservative policy (usually one that's working or beginning to work) and the infliction of undeserved guilt. This is nowhere so clear as when it pops up in a discussion of crime.
In the 1970s, Oregon instituted a no-plea-bargains policy for felony crimes. The crime rate in that state immediately fell dramatically and stayed down. Why? Because the criminal class was being kept penned up! Oregon's criminal justice system had finally taken note of the "root cause" of felony crime: career criminals. When these are successfully segregated from the law-abiding public, fewer crimes will be committed.
Don't try this sort of reasoning on a leftist. He'll respond with a torrent of drivel about our obligation to help these poor misguided souls, how prison is no way to rehabilitate them for civil society, and so on. The illogic might make you want to commit a felony yourself.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto | Feb 29, 2008 at 04:39 AM
The root causes include poverty. No one has ever actually conclusively linked poverty to crime, but the reverse has been generally proved by studies. It is also provable just from a position of pure logic because businesses cannot operate successfully in an environment that is filled with crime. Fewer businesses means fewer investments, which means fewer jobs. That's why the most effective way to get rid of poverty is a sweeping campaign against violent crimes against people and poverty, not welfare spending.
You have to remember that most liberals who say these things fall into two categories. They are either white liberals who would never live where they'd get exposed to these problems themselves, or they are minority liberals who are at least borderline racist and are guilty of the same mentality that chose Barrabas over Jesus.
I have for a while written on my blog of the need to execute dangerous sex offenders on the grounds that it is safe for society, and humane for the offender. Liberals, on the other hand, would rather pass laws like ones prohibiting them from living within 2,500 ft of where kids congregate and make them wear GPS leg bracelets for life. In effect, they'd prefer to have dangerously recidivist offenders let out of jail and turned into social lepers, while claiming that they are doing their best to "rehabilitate" these incorrigible offenders, than to put them to death for their crime.
With liberals, it is always about how they feel about themselves and society, not about anyone else. They'd rather feel that they are being merciful by giving a dangerous criminal a second chance that they don't deserve, while putting up so many barriers that even a repentant, formerly dangerous criminal cannot ever hope to live a semi-normal life again.
Don't even get me started on what they do to our right to use force for self-defense...
Posted by: MikeT | Feb 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
It's odd to see the type of policies that some states enforce. One gets to read news about a thug who assaults or murders someone. Then we're told that the said criminal has had multiple convictions for such crimes.
I always think: Why was that felon released at all!?
One also comes across the drug laws. In horrible cases the police just bust into a home without knocking. Given the nature of such areas, the homeowner instinctively tries to defend himself which results in injuries or death.
I agree that most laws and punishments are lax. Though, a few are extreme towards the other end.
Posted by: Isaac Schrödinger | Mar 01, 2008 at 01:21 PM