Criminal Justice
© 2015 Rick Adamson
by Rick Adamson 5.26.15
In the late 1980s and early 1990s crime rates hit their peak and the issue was on the minds of everyone (which is hard to comprehend for anyone under the age of 35). In 1994, under President Clinton, major crime legislation was passed because of the out of control crime situation.
At the time Hillary said this about the bill:
“We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.”
Incidentally, the bill was supported by many of those who are now protesting including the Congressional Black Caucus. At the time, they wanted their children protected from violent crack dealers.
It worked, crime rates decreased. Did you know that according to official FBI and U.S. Department of Justice reports, the rates of violent crime in the U.S. are now at their lowest level in 40 years? Did you know that violent crime rates of 2010 were 1/3 the rates of 1994? Did you know that Deaths of law enforcement officers are at their lowest in 50 years according to the Boston Globe. What inspiring news. Yet it's amazing how little media attention this is drawing.
Instead, all we hear about is the overcrowding of prisons and the injustices these laws are inflicting upon the minority community. But do we want to repeat history and return to the crime levels of the past?
The stunning crime reduction of the last couple of decades is being called a ‘public policy disaster’ from every news outlet -- even the news outlets currently being looted in Baltimore” said Ann Coulter
Clearly, the laws were not perfect. Clearly, some revisions need to be made with regard to punishment and incarceration for minor non-violent infractions. Clearly, all criminal laws must be applied equitably.
The 1994 effort also failed. The goal of those laws were not to put people in jail, but to discourage criminal behavior. So, to the extent that more folks went to jail, the new law was not a glowing success.
What was (and is) missing (not to mention the general deterioration of or lack of moral character) is that the fear of incarceration alone was not enough to discourage criminal behavior possibly because incarceration was made too easy to dole out (applied to minor infractions). If, on the other hand, the apprehension rates are high and prison is a place that no one wants to go, crime would stay down (possibly continue to decrease) and the prison population would be reduced.
Referring to Hillary’s above quotation, I completely agree. She said what she thought and all of her recent backpedaling is about getting votes. She has devoted substantial lip service to describing the current situation but not a word about how and what she would change. Don’t be fooled, its political BS.
We need to apply the aggressive approach (the 1994 laws) only to the predatory actors (usually armed) who terrorize our citizens. There is no place in a civilized society for these types of people. We see these crimes on the news every day and the perpetrators should be removed from our streets forever, e.g., armed men who rob beauty shops and terrorize the patrons with pistols (illegally possessed, of course), armed men who rob a neighborhood pizzeria and terrorize its patrons with guns (illegally possessed, of course), murders and car jackings with weapons. These acts represent premeditated aggressive predatory (terrorist) acts and should not be tolerated. Zero tolerance.
Their new home should be a very unpleasant place devoid of entertainment, drugs and gangs. It would be a place of employment and learning. One that cannot be escaped except by graduation which would be contingent upon completion of the employment and learning objectives set out in the sentence.
And That’s that!
