One of the primary functions of government is the protection of life and liberty. Yet, where the party that loves government is in charge (their name starts with “D”), government is terrible at protection of life and prevention of crime. In fact, by the policies they pursue the government promotes crime, and all of the “progressive” policy goals are enabling of crime and criminals in one way or another at the expense of law-abiding citizens and victims.
In this installment of Exactly Wrong, we’re going to look at how Democrat policies incentivize criminal activity, punish the law-abiding, and bring down living standards for all of us. The societal wreckage of Democrats’ coddling of criminals is another human tragedy that have much to answer for.
In December 2021 I took a look at two specific cases in Exactly Wrong – Democrats and Crime. Since then, things have just gotten worse.
What is Crime?
From stealing an inexpensive item from a store to mass murder, crime basically is where somebody harms another by infringing on their rights or property.
According to the Legal Information Institute,
“A crime is behavior that is punishable as a public offense. The elements of a crime generally come from statutes, but may also be supplied by the common law in states where the criminal common law still carries force.
Crime is behavior, either by act or omission, defined by statutory or common law as deserving of punishment or penalty. Although most crimes require the element of intent, certain minor crimes may be committed based on strict liability even if the defendant had no specific mindset with regard to the criminal action. For instance, parking violations are crimes that usually do not require prosecutors to establish intent.
Some crimes are considered mala prohibita (bad because prohibited); these are prohibited by statute but are not inherently evil. Other crimes are considered mala in se (bad in themselves); these are considered inherently evil under general community standards. The idea of mala in se formed the original justification for common law crimes. However, many crimes that are today prohibited by statute also belong to the category of mala in se.
Crimes are prosecuted by government attorneys. Such attorneys may represent a city, county, state, or the federal government. Examples include the Attorney General of the United States, the attorney general of a state, federal district attorneys, and city attorneys.
Crimes are ranked as greater violations of public order (felony) or as lesser violations (misdemeanor), and are adjudicated according to rules of criminal procedure.”
In general, a “felony” crime is a more serious crime, including murder, manslaughter, rape, theft of over a defined amount, some property crimes, etc. A person convicted of a felony is usually going to face a prison sentence of a few years up to life imprisonment or death.
A “misdemeanor” is usually a crime punishable by less than 12 months in jail. Common punishments for misdemeanors include community service, probation, fines and imprisonment.
A person convicted of a felony generally is prohibited from voting and serving in elected office, and may also lose other rights as well, such as voting and the right to keep and bear arms.
A person convicted of a misdemeanor is not prohibited from voting or serving in elected office. They are still a convicted criminal, yet they have the authority to make or enforce laws. I suggest this is an area for reform.
Crime has been a part of the human experience since Cain picked up the rock to kill his brother Abel and will continue long after we’re gone.
Crime…and Punishment
Human society has developed a set of rules over time that defines what constitutes a “crime” and how the perpetrator(s) of that crime are to be dealt with. These rules are called “laws” and come into being in one of two ways: evolution over time (common law) and via enactment of an elected body (statutory law).
One of the bedrock principles is that crime must be dealt with somehow. Laws often seek to identify and define prohibited behavior that constitutes a crime, and also to define the penalties that are in place to punish those who commit crimes.
“Punishment” serves two purposes: retribution (based on the Judeo-Christian principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”) and deterrence, by making the punishment unpleasant enough that anyone contemplating a particular crime might be deterred from committing it. As with many things in life, the thought process involved in committing crimes includes a cost/benefit analysis, and if the perceived cost of the crime (if one gets caught) exceeds the benefit, the crime probably won’t be committed.
Sadly, even stiff penalties including death are often not enough of a deterrent for someone who is determined to do evil – like mass murderers who end up killing themselves or willingly accept the possibility of life in prison.
Some on the Left like to say that “all cultures are equal”. Well, they are not. One way we can see this is through how punishment for crime has evolved in Western Civilization. No longer do we employ such punishments as blinding and castration. We don’t stone adulterers to death. We don’t allow authorities to interrogate prisoners by putting them on the rack. We don’t use hanging, beheading, drawing and quartering, burning alive or any of the other barbaric medieval execution methods. If anything, we go out of our way to make sure that the condemned aren’t subject to “cruel and unusual punishment”, no matter how heinous their crimes – or their lack of mercy to their victims.
The overriding consideration for the “punishment” part of the crime equation is balancing the punishment with the deterrent effect and proportionality. For example, the truck driver that lost control of his truck and smashed into several cars on I-70 was originally sentenced to 110 years in prison. Many thought that the sentence he received was too harsh and Governor Jared Polis (D) reduced the sentence to 10 years. (Should a governor really have that kind of power?) But, when someone commits a heinous murder and gets away with a couple years in prison with credit for time served, people will condemn the sentence as being too lenient.
It also depends on who the criminal is. If he or she is a member of a Democrat favored group, pressure will be brought to bear to reduce or even eliminate any criminal penalty for that person. Similarly, if the criminal is a member of a hated group – say, heterosexual conservative white men – they will try to throw the book at him.
I understand why there are minimum sentencing guidelines and that is to alleviate the fear that for whatever reason judges will go “too easy” on criminals. On the other hand, you have judges who will impose harsh sentences without taking any mitigating factors into account. I personally like the idea of minimum sentences, but I also believe that judges should have a certain amount of leeway. There’s also a case to be made for maximum sentencing guidelines.
There are definitely balancing acts that take place all throughout the justice system. There is a recognition that in America, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. At the same time, there is a public safety interest in keeping dangerous individuals incarcerated until they can stand trial. We are entitled to “speedy justice”, yet due to various factors it seems that justice can take years.
As far as deterrence goes, the idea is to “let the punishment fit the crime” so that others will be disincentivized to commit the same crime. This is why regicide was punished so harshly in the Middle Ages – to make others think twice before committing that particular crime.
Democrats Promote Crime
When all is said and done, Democrats don’t blame the criminal, they blame society and “the system”. They believe that a criminal’s choice to commit crimes is due to how they were raised, or poverty, or racism, or some other external factor instead of the choices that each individual makes.
There are plenty of people who grow up in less than favorable circumstances who become fine, contributing, law-abiding members of society, and there are plenty of people who grow up in privilege who turn out to be depraved criminals. It has nothing to do with “society” and everything to do with what each individual decides to do.
Because Democrats don’t believe that people are responsible for their choices, they want to reduce the “punishment” part of the crime equation. This is why we’ve seen how California voters (mostly Democrats) passed Proposition 47 in 2014 which made retail theft of $950 or less a misdemeanor instead of a felony. According to National Review, “Prop. 47 was co-written by then-San Francisco DA George Gascón (one of the George Soros-backed DAs) who, in 2020, became the district attorney of Los Angeles.”
As a result, by watering down the “deterrent” effect of the law, retail theft has exploded in California (and indeed throughout the nation), with people brazenly going into stores and walking out with several items, and organized crime rings raiding stores in broad daylight and taking merchandise worth thousands of dollars.
Because of this, major retailers like Target, Walgreens, Whole Foods, Amazon, Walgreens and others are cutting hours or closing stores altogether. This means that the people who live in those areas have fewer shopping choices, fewer available jobs, and less sales tax revenues for local governments. This contributes to an overall cycle of decline and decay instead of growth.
George Soros, the well-known billionaire, has backed dozens of prosecutors nationwide with catastrophic results, often disproportionately harming minority communities. According to www.capitalresearch.org, Soros district attorneys are presiding over a huge expansion of crime. Some of these DAs are practically household names, like the aforementioned George Gascón, Kim Foxx (Chicago), Kim Gardner (St. Louis, MO), Larry Krasner (Philadelphia) and Alvin Bragg (Manhattan, NY).
In Colorado, Democrats and other far-left progressives led the charge to de-criminalize fentanyl possession with HB 19-1263, which made possession of four grams or less of certain drugs (including fentanyl) a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The result? According to www.coloradohealthinstiute.org, fentanyl overdose deaths rose by 54% in 2020 and continue at a crisis level.
Defund the Police
In yet another of the logical inconsistencies throughout leftist “thought” (which is really just childish emotion-processing), leftists want the state to be all-powerful and impactful of every aspect of our lives, yet they fear and distrust the armed agents of the state who are charged with enforcing the law.
In the aftermath of the unfortunate death of George Floyd of a fentanyl overdose – which was widely blamed on law enforcement – cities exploded into leftist violence and rage against the police. Almost immediately, leftist hooligans took to the streets rioting, looting, destroying public property, committing murder, and generally making life difficult for the innocent people who lived in those cities. (Though majorities of them DID vote for Democrats, so maybe there’s an element of karmic justice there?)
Democrats in several cities either enacted cuts to police budgets, as in Austin, TX; or proposed elimination of police departments altogether.
For the most part, sanity has prevailed, and these attempts have been largely abandoned…until next time.
In the 1800s, an “abolitionist” was a person (probably a Republican) who was advocating for the elimination of human slavery in the United States. In America today (and in Colorado), an “abolitionist” is a radical left-wing politician who advocates for doing away with the police. Elect these people at your peril. Of course, some are put into office by vacancy committees – something else to reform in Colorado.
Another area where Democrats are exactly wrong is in the realm of school safety. They believe that by designating a school as a “gun-free zone” that those intent on doing harm will be deterred from going there to commit mass murder. On the contrary, a “gun-free zone” is an invitation to mass murder because the bad guys know that they are unlikely to encounter armed resistance.
By blaming crime in America on racism, poverty, and everything else but the person committing the crime, Democrats prove themselves time and again to be Exactly Wrong on crime. Fortunately, the way to fix this is to vote them all out of office in 2024, without exception.
Responses