Crime is an inherent human problem, and it has been since the very beginning of time.
Throughout history and around the world, criminals have always been dealt with harshly.
When colonists came to America, crime was mostly a community decision, and the consequences could range from branding a scarlet “A” for adulterers to public floggings to pillory in the public square to capital punishment.
What helped our country to coalesce was a near-universal set of moral and ethical values that were derived mostly from English common law and diverse religious beliefs.
As time marched on, the prevention of crime became job #1 for all levels of American government, as public safety became paramount to the flourishing of our society.
Diversity of opinion about how to react to criminals, especially violent criminals, goes all the way back to Benjamin Franklin, who famously advocated for the abolition of the death penalty, which became a reality in Pennsylvania in 1794.
Even during the terribly violent 1930s, almost all Americans believed that violent criminals needed to at least be incarcerated once captured and convicted in a court of law for violating the law.
From the 70s to the 90s, “tough on crime” was the mantra, and in a 1982 article, the Manhattan Institute enunciated a “Broken Windows” theory that if law enforcement attacked relatively minor offenses like graffiti and broken windows, attention could help prevent more violent crime, and that law and order were supreme.
By the dawn of the twenty-first century, however, public perception began to shift to more “progressive” solutions among the majority of all demographic groups, according to a study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates.
The one constant in the back of our collective minds has always been that the victims of crime were the ones who needed to be protected, to be consoled, and that justice had to be meted out for society to remain safe.
I share this brief history of crime because all of a sudden, within the last decade, a virulent strain of radical thinking has taken hold within the Democratic Party that criminals, even violent criminals, are themselves “victims” of an unjust society that deprived them of a nuclear family, or some vague environmental issues during their upbringing, or a lack of financial well-being.
The elite apologists and ivory-tower academicians have spread these cherry-picked theories, and the radicals within the Democratic Party and the Far Left have wholly embraced them and are now advocating them even to their illogical conclusion.
Defund the police has been their recurrent rallying cry.
Of course, this is mostly advocated by individuals who live in walled mansions, or in the safest part of town, or where crime rarely occurs.
Though crime and even violent crime are generally on a downward trend, only a small plurality (15% – 34%) of Americans support the idea of getting rid of police forces.
Nevertheless, to people who live in high-crime areas, which is the case in most large cities and urban areas, any crime at all makes them feel unsafe and denies them the ability to enjoy their neighborhood.
So, when a Democratic elected official, like Charlotte, NC Mayor Vi Lyles, states on her X account that “We will never arrest our way out of issues such (sic) homelessness and mental health,” about a career criminal who was taped via a security camera on public transit stabbing to death a hapless victim from Ukraine, the immediate perception is that she is soft on crime.
While one might think that this is just a solitary example, there are, in fact, many instances in which Democratic elected officials either attempt to explain away the crime or make the criminal the victim.
CNN’s liberal analyst Van Jones is another example, when he was quoted shortly after that transit murder, saying that “We don’t know why that man did what he did…this man is hurting.”
No, this man is not hurting; he is cruelly dangerous to himself and to society.
Dangerous people simply need to be incarcerated or institutionalized. Period.
Last month, Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stated after a transgender woman murdered innocent children and others inside a church on a school campus, “I have heard about a whole lot of hate that’s being directed at our trans community…Don’t just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now.”
For this Mayor, the crime is about the transgender community, not the young lives that were snuffed out by a deranged individual who hated themself and society for their own choices.
The latest example of the Radical Democrats/Far Left’s contempt for anything or anybody conservative was MSNBC‘s airing of host Katy Tur’s comments shortly after conservative Turning Point’s founder, Charlie Kirk’s assassination in Utah, that he was “divisive” and “polarizing,” and analyst Matthew Doud’s commenting that Kirk’s “hateful words” causes “hateful actions.”
Really?
Democrats are continuing to take the wrong position on a key issue important to voters who will vote in the midterm elections.
It is unlikely that mainstream Democrats, much less conservative Dems, will vote for candidates that always find an explanation for why some heinous criminal act occurred rather than being empathetic with the people impacted by the crime.
Whether it is a virulent strain of anti-Semitism, advocating on behalf of narcoterrorists attempting to import dangerous drugs via speedboats in international waters to the US, supporting MS13 or TDA gang members who have illegally entered into our country and killing, raping, almost daily, unsuspecting victims, or opposing federal troops assisting Washington, DC law enforcement officers to combat violent crime, Democrats are consistently and relentlessly siding with a small but vocal minority of members in their Party.
It is nonsensical.
And I bet this will hurt Dems with independent voters, whom they must secure if they have any hope of retaking the House.
