One reason Bill Clinton was called the 'first Black President' (by Toni Morrison) was because he had listened to African-American Church groups and responded to their 'moral panic' about the crack epidemic by supporting tough 'three strikes' legislation.
Biden too gained by his strong support for the 1994 crime law. His Veep, Kamala Harris, attracted support (even the Trumps contributed to her first campaign!) by presenting herself as a tough prosecutor. However, it is entirely credible that she is at heart a reformer. That's why she won't replace Biden.
Soros, with typical maladroitness, came out in 2022 with a scheme involving the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars to get progressive DAs elected. This meant the legalization of theft and a flight of retailers from working class areas. There was already a backlash. Chesa Boudin, in San Francisco, was recalled by voters about a month before Soros published the following op-ed in the WSJ.
Americans desperately need a more thoughtful discussion about our response to crime.
This 'thoughtful discussion' had already occurred amongst African American economists, jurists and sociologists. They had a workable plan but needed sensible white people to get on board. Sadly, White Liberals preferred to virtue signal and indulge in paranoid demagoguery from the safety of their penthouses or beach houses in the Hamptons.
People have had enough of the demagoguery and divisive partisan attacks that dominate the debate and obscure the issues.
Indeed. Why spend tens of millions to provide fuel for the fire? Let it die out on its own.
Like most of us, I’m concerned about crime. One of government’s most important roles is to ensure public safety. I have been involved in efforts to reform the criminal-justice system for the more than 30 years I have been a philanthropist.
Decriminalizing certain types of drug use is sensible and Soros did help fund the 'Proposition 36' movement. The 'Second Chances' act of 2007, too, was perfectly rational.
What isn't rational is to demand 'progressive'- as opposed to diligent and scrupulous- District Attorneys. Essentially, what this comes down to is bypassing the Legislature so as to achieve the outcomes you want in a corrupt manner. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Once the 'progressive' DA is voted out, the next guy feels he has a mandate to lock up all the Blacks the police didn't shoot.
What is particularly sad is that there are some good candidates- e.g. Gascon in LA- who, because they took Soros's money, had to do stupid shit because of which they faced recall campaigns.
Yet our system is rife with injustices that make us all less safe.
Quite true. But collecting evidence and launching class action suits or 'pattern and practice' investigations and securing 'consent decrees' on that basis is the way forward. It is foolish to think that putting in a guy who refuses to prosecute certain types of crimes- ones which have the biggest impact on the least well off- is the solution to the problem. It is obvious that there will be a back-lash.
The idea that we need to choose between justice and safety is false.
There is a trade off between what prudence counsels and what our sense of fairness dictates. We may want to lock up a guy who looks like he might be an axe murderer but it would not be fair to do so if there is no compelling evidence against him.
They reinforce each other: If people trust the justice system, it will work.
Nonsense! Soros himself gives the example of Jewish professionals who trusted the State and thus who obeyed summonses which led to their being packed onto cattle trucks and sent off to the gas chambers.
A Justice system which nobody trusts will still work though smart peeps will have disintermediated it- sometimes by fleeing the jurisdiction or by gaining some sort of countervailing power against it.
And if the system works, public safety will improve.
Not necessarily. Public safety may be very high even if the justice system is rudimentary or wholly ad hoc.
We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people.
Only if we need to acknowledge that women don't got penises. Is that why they bleed from the kooch once a month? Hopefully Soros will fund research into this very important question.
That is an injustice that undermines our democracy.
There is no relationship between the two. A democracy can treat a minority like shit and still be a democracy.
We spend $81 billion every year keeping around two million people in prisons and jails.
Prisoners produce about 11 billion dollars every year. Also health, longevity and educational outcomes improve for some population segments if they are subject to long term incarceration. There is also some evidence that this improves outcomes for their families.
The sad fact is making incarceration even more visibly racist (e.g. by substituting fines and community service orders for 'white collar' offenses) would probably improve outcomes.
Justice does not have to involve a 'pooling equilibrium'. It is obvious that there is always a better 'separating equilibrium'. But this would go against 'cheap talk'.
Tom Wolf's 'Bonfire of the Vanities' and his 'A Man in Full' highlight the injustice done to the 'Great White Defendant' who must be incarcerated for purely political reasons.
We need to invest more in preventing crime with strategies that work—deploying mental-health professionals in crisis situations,
in which cases hardened criminals will increasingly present as mentally ill. Crime, as a profession, is profoundly game theoretic. Organized crime requires a penal system to defeat 'prisoner's dilemma' and increase cohesiveness and obedience within its own hierarchies. Taking 'small fry' off the streets creates a barrier to entry. This means that there would be less output of crime. Sadly, where there are economies of scope and scale- e.g. drug manufacture and distribution- the supply of demerit goods may greatly increase and social norms might change as previously deviant behavior is accepted as something we have to live with.
investing in youth job programs,
which is a good thing in itself. The sad fact is most young boys are like me- i.e. as thick as shit. I had the opportunity to start earning a little money when I was 15 and that got me to focus on stuff I could actually do- boring and low IQ stuff though it undoubtedly was. Still, a boy who is employable is accorded a certain amount of respect in society. Chances are he will be able to get married and start a family.
Instead of investing in 'youth job programs', some boys should have the chance to 'earn and learn' from puberty onward. 'Putting food on the table' is a strong motivator and source of self-worth for young males.
and creating opportunities for education behind bars.
Again, this is good in itself and can be done in a manner that it pays for itself.
This reduces the likelihood that those prisoners will commit new crimes after release.
Though it may increase the desirability of going to jail in the first place. In Japan, elderly people commit crimes to get taken care off in prison. In America, perhaps the day will come when an ambitious young man commits manslaughter so as to go to jail and stay there long enough to get a J.D.
In recent years, reform-minded prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials around the country have been coalescing around an agenda that promises to be more effective and just.
Moreover, TV dramas about sexy lawyers have convinced ordinary people that such reforms will more than pay for themselves. On the other hand, the mindless 'progressive' who thinks all pedophile serial killers are victims of Neo-Liberalism has been caricatured in numberless films featuring macho cops with very big pistols.
This agenda includes prioritizing the resources of the criminal-justice system to protect people against violent crime
Killing violent criminals is very effective in this respect. After the 'woke' agenda fails, the 'killology' of crazy Police Union Chiefs will prevail.
It urges that we treat drug addiction as a disease, not a crime.
Indeed. Criminal behavior by gangs too is a pathology. Give neighborhood gangs (which kids join to get a measure of protection) economic opportunities of a legal and meritorious kind and the underlying problem is tackled at source.
Old time religion can be very effective in this respect- but liberals might not like it.
And it seeks to end the criminalization of poverty and mental illness.
This is the sort of paranoid lie which Soros should not repeat. Why? The next step is to say that the pedophile serial killer is just a victim of Neo-Liberalism. We should not be angry with those who sodomize and strangle our babies. It is our duty to provide them with emotional support so they can arrive at a proper understanding of the manner in which Financial Markets promote a vicious 'biopolitics' which pretends that Mums aren't the biggest criminals of all! What they term 'breast feeding' is actually an obscene type of sexual crime! Admittedly, sodomizing and strangling the baby is not the best way to put an end to this horrible practice, but at least the pedo scumbag is doing something about the problem.
This agenda, aiming at both safety and justice, is based on both common sense and evidence. It’s popular. It’s effective. The goal is not defunding the police but restoring trust between the police and the policed, a partnership that fosters the solving of crimes.
Very true. Similarly, we must try to foster a relationship of trust between Mums and babies. Pedo scumbags must be made part of the solution instead of being criminalized- in which case they are seen as part of the problem.
Some politicians and pundits have tried to blame recent spikes in crime on the policies of reform-minded prosecutors.
But voters could see what was happening for themselves.
The research I’ve seen says otherwise. The most rigorous academic study, analyzing data across 35 jurisdictions, shows no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.
Because departments find ways of working around such prosecutors.
In fact, violent crime in recent years has generally been increasing more quickly in jurisdictions without reform-minded prosecutors.
increasing crime is likely to correlate to the election of 'tough on crime' prosecutors who may be just as useless as 'reform-minded' prosecutors and 'corrupt-as-fuck' prosecutors.
Murder rates have been rising fastest in some Republican states led by tough-on-crime politicians.
Indeed. Gun ownership, poverty, lower educational attainment, etc. are one type of explanation. But the arrow of causality is obviously from higher crime to a demand for tougher-on-crime policies.
Serious scholars researching causes behind the recent increase in crime have pointed to other factors: a disturbing rise in mental illness among young people due to the isolation imposed by Covid lockdowns, a pullback in policing in the wake of public criminal-justice reform protests, and increases in gun trafficking. Many of the same people who call for more-punitive criminal-justice policies also support looser gun laws.
Which is rational. It is a fact that criminals run away when a Soccer Mom gets out her gun.
This is why I have supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform. I have done it transparently, and I have no intention of stopping.
Soros is the gift that keeps giving- to everybody he hates.
The funds I provide enable sensible reform-minded candidates to receive a hearing from the public.
But they won't be heard if people think they are Soros's mouth-pieces.
Judging by the results, the public likes what it’s hearing.
Soros started funding 'progressive' prosecutors in 2014. Marilyn Mosby, in Baltimore, was one of his first successes. As a young, African American woman, she had some good ideas and wanted to take a much tougher stance against sex offenders. However, being painted as a 'woke' liberal- or Soros puppet- greatly harmed her. She and her husband are under indictment for various financial crimes. An attractive African American 'power couple' who probably have perfectly sensible ideas, have been tarred by the Soros brush. This is the problem with using money to buy influence. Those who are labelled as your puppets may be brought down by fair means or foul.
It is one thing to promote better criminological outcomes. It is another to cherry pick candidates to back. Soros's intentions may be good. But what about the intentions of his lieutenants? They may have their own agenda. After all, once the old man kicks the bucket, his capos want to have a lot of their own pieces on the political chess-board. An unaccountable, occulted, cabal will be plotting to take control of the Democratic Party. That is bad for Democracy. Soros, the exemplary immigrant, may leave a poisoned legacy to the country where he flourished. Already, the use of Soros as a bogeyman is routine in America and parts of Europe. Modi-loving India is getting in on the act. Mahathir, in Malaysia, was the first to see Soros's potential as the incarnation of the old anti-Semitic trope re. the secret alliance between 'rootless, cosmopolitan' Capitalism and atheistic Communism.
No comments:
Post a Comment