Over the last few months, President Trump has deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, to crack down on crime and unrest in the cities, and he has subsequently threatened to do the same in other big cities as well.
Democrats can start by being against crime. That would be an impressive start, because so many Democratic policy makers and especially prosecutors (see: Larry Krasner, Philly, or Steve Descano, Fairfax County, VA) refused to prosecute crimes or keep violent perpetrators in jail. The evidence is there for all to see. Come out against cashless bail and adopt the "broken windows" approach, and you'll be off to a fine start. Start showing support for police, instead of "defunding" them. And make sure every town and city collects and reports honest data - many have stopped entirely, and the lack of credible statistics is also evident (see: Washington, DC, and many major cities). https://www.nssf.org/articles/america-has-a-crime-reporting-problem/
There are reasons voters trust Reps more to tackle crime, then Dems. Anyone who was an adult in the 90s, understands how to tame crime, enforce Broken Windows. Charge and incarcerate the maximum. Dems constantly beat the drum of gun control, but many Blue City DAs refuse to charge gun enhancements, that can add 3-10 years to a prison sentence, when a gun is utilized in a crime.
One perpetual challenge is a lack of police in cities that embraced Defund the Police. During DtP mania, Seattle was so short of detectives, for a time, they stopped investigating adult rape unless it was in conjunction with a murder. Someone leaked an internal memo, and the city was shamed into hiring more detectives. Think about that. A major US city giving rapists a free pass, due to a lack of personnel.
Some mistakes are harder to correct than others. Defund the Police still stings. Many Blue Cities may be permanently understaffed. A FL girlfriend, lives next door to a retired cop, who works part time for De Santis, wining and dining cops, all over the country. They recruit those with excellent records, approaching their first level of retirement, often in their 40s. The pitch is take your early pension, come to FL where the weather and schools are great, state income tax nonexistent. Flexible schedules, great pay, most of all, when the stuff hits the fan, the state has your back. How many Dem Governors or Mayors are that forward thinking?
Also I think that in Democrat run cities they are soft on crime in the sense that they do not arrest people … as we saw with the person who murdered the young woman in Charlotte. It brings their crime statistics down that way
Personally I do not trust them on this issue … what comes across is they are more concerned for the criminals than the victims esp if said victim is not one of their ‘groups’
Yes-After something like 14 prior arrests. His most recent release, shortly before he murdered that young woman, was more or less done on a pinky swear to the judge that he would be a good Boy Scout in the future.
Justice came too late for Iryna Zarutska.
Yes, the system failed her killer, too. A paranoid schizophrenic with a history of violence was never forced to get the care he needed.
I’m certain people with a long track record of violence shouldn’t be in circulation in society. If I had a magic wand I’d have Bippity-Boppity forced her killer into treatment long before he got this bad. There are, tragically, a lot of psychiatric patients in prison who shouldn’t be there, but thanks to _One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest_, involuntary commitment in a high security mental hospital isn’t a thing anymore. If we are left with a binary choice of 1) Psychotics randomly stabbing people to death or 2) Imprisonment, for the greater good I gotta vote for 2.
Have you seen the movie minority report? It's based on a Phillip K. Dick novel about a future society in which they arrested people before they actually committed crimes. That's basically what you're advocating.
I have indeed seen it. Great movie. Been a while, but IIRC a pool of clairvoyants have their capabilities supercharged in a magic swimming pool and are then used to predict crimes before they happen. If something like 2/3 of the clairvoyants agree the future crime is going to happen, the would-be criminals are arrested before they can commit their crimes and given some kind of intervention (prison?), ostensibly with a 100% success rate. What a win! Nobody even thinks about committing crime anymore!
Only, turns out the clairvoyants aren’t 100% accurate (sometimes one disagrees in a “minority report”) It also turns out one can fool their second sight or whatever, leading to reasonable doubt about their certainty. The program is shut down.
And I’m unclear how any of that applies in this case. The problem _wasn’t_ that DeCarlos Brown Jr. was arrested because someone had a “vibe” that he was _going_ to do something. The problem was a catch-and-release program that failed to _keep_ him out of circulation, preferably getting treatment, _after_ he had done _14_ crimes, three of which were felonies and one of which was an assault on his own sister.
We don’t have clairvoyants in a big tub of saltwater, but a long track record of _past_ violent behavior is excellent at predicting _future_ violent behavior, absent some significant intervention.
I call myself a liberal, though there are those who would like to vote me out of the club for some of my views, among which is that the right of a violent paranoid schizophrenic to roam free hurting and killing does not trump the right of a young woman to live through her commute.
“Meet voters where they are and treat their concerns with respect?” Yes first step. Second step is to implement EFFECTIVE policy to make things better. Not policy that sounds good, it must be policy that has actually reduced crime in many places.
One goal might be for every blue city to see that a criminal referred, by the court, for a mental evaluation, BE EVALUATIONED. And have the court name the person responsible that is done. I’d have the court name the mayor of the city personally responsible to report back to the court, so no one is lost in the system.
If the Charlotte murderer had been evaluated, as directed by the court in July, Iryna Zarutska would probably be alive today. And probably Decarlos Brown would never rob someone at gunpoint again as he did last July. Charlotte would have one less dangerous person moving freely about. And Decarlos might get the care he needs.
Like all effective policy; it is hard work, consistently enforced, with predictable consequences. City, by city the Democrats party will. Increase the quality of life and begin the long road back to power..
What was frustrating for me and my wife (a former police officer) in the two years before the election was watching Democrats throw the election away.
They took so many stands that were not popular with the public, policing was one of the most obvious. DEFUND! In comment section after comment section calling police officers names.
We said, everywhere we could: "Stop!!!! This is a losing position!" Nobody listened.
During the election we wrote a blog entry about why we could not vote for Harris. She took a defunding position, plus a lot of mish mash about curing all of society so there wouldn't be criminals. And that the answer to crime was not more police officers, showing a complete disregard of years of evidence (and she had been an Attorney General?)
So, we wrote a blog about her position on policing and progressives' position on policing....positions we knew were losers. Our blog is mostly about our travels and our grandchildren, and it's not monetized, but here is that entry. It's been viewed hundreds of times.
She was also a co-sponsor of the George Floyd Justice in Policing bill, which every police officer would see as a slam against them. She made no statements against the BLM protests that resulted in 3 billion dollars worth of damage and ruined the livelihoods of countless small business owners. What does this say to the public?
She also, as Attorney General of California, refused to seek the death penalty in the killing of a police officer, even though the voters had approved it. What does this say about her attitude and what does this say to the public?
according to your link "The act is a comprehensive policing reform bill aimed at holding police accountable, ending racial profiling, and changing law enforcement culture." Why is this a problem to the police who are not the "few bad apples"?
It assumes something very dumb. And that is that the problem is not one of criminals but it is a problem of policing.
AND the public hated it. They see the problems with crime being criminals, not police.
"changing law enforcement culture" is gobbledegook.
Not only that, if you read the link in our blog, what this kind of thing did was cause police all over the nation to quit. And who did that hurt the most? Low income and minority populations.
So these silly acts by people who have never been in policing ended up hurting the very people Democrats used to protect.
Harris called for defunding. We have the video. During the campaign. And before the campaign. And she NEVER slammed the idea.
So, yes, it was in Democratic campaign platforms as her position on the issue. The Democrat running for President espoused this. Isn't that enough for you? And progressives all over the map were saying it. Loudly.
I did. It's in the link we provided that is on our blog.
There is mounds of data in that blog. It would be good for you to read it all and see why people like you ended up giving the election to Trump, because your progressive position protects criminals, not the public.
Realize this Teed: You lost. The public turned against you.
And what does this mean: It means progressives had better change or keep losing. But they won't because, like you, they continue to think they are "right."
I did take a look at it, your blog, and saw that it contains a lot of useful information. It's clearly an honest advocacy site, and when I care a lot about an issue, I try to read advocates from both sides of an issue. However, my priorities right now don't include evaluating someone who isn't even running for office anymore., So I'm not gonna take the trouble to follow this up. I will say that with regard to the links you just sent me I wouldn't consider someone to be anti-police who said "We need to take a look at our budget and see if it reflects the right priorities". and"you can both be tough and smart on crime, and it requires funding police, but it also requires funding rehabilitation and things that might criminal justice system safer. You can do both. "
Thanks Teed. the purpose of the NYT article was to provide background as to why I had said that positions she took, including on policing, changed when she ran for President.
But the place where I might disagree with you is that it is critical to have an accurate diagnosis before one can implement a treatment. That was my profession.
And until we can adequately and fully diagnose why someone could lose to Trump and why the Democratic party is in the toilet in this country then we can't fix the problems.
But there is a lot of denial among progressives. Study after study showing that people don't like progressive positions, but I've not seen or read a single progressive say "I was wrong." "I need to change."
Instead, all I have seen is digging in of heels. "Let's run AOC!!!"
As a life-long Democrat (50 years of voting), it was maddening for me to sit and watch progressive ideas destroy my beloved party. We could tell they were going to lose 2 years before the election, because we know a lot of Republicans and Independents and would know how they would react to the progressive rhetoric.
Now, the backlash is horrible. And that was predictable too. Because that is how human nature is.
We yelled, we explained, we went on and on in every forum possible trying to tell Democrats that progressive ideas were killers.
I see no possible answer for Democrats on crime. The two biggest crime-committing groups, blacks and illegal aliens, are key components of the D voter strategy. (The latter is being deported by Trump in record numbers---can the Ds claim they'll do better?)
More crackdown on crime equals more black men in jail. It's just a simple fact. I don't see how they get around that.
Identity theft is especially common among illegal aliens. Consider the dozens of cases at just one employer: "OMAHA, Neb. (KCAU) — The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released more information on June 18 about a raid at an Omaha, Nebraska business. ICE said they uncovered a “massive identity theft” impacting unsuspecting U.S. citizens as a result of a raid at Glenn Valley Foods on June 10. Federal authorities said a multi-agency investigation led by ICE found that about 70 illegal aliens were using stolen Social Security numbers and identities. Officials said those aliens used the identities to unlawfully get employment authorization, health benefits, and wages." source: msn.com
That makes sense. What about crimes against people, what we usually think about crimes? What I have read (seen no data on) is that their crime rate is lower. But, as I said, I'm devoid of data which is usually what I seek.
Wow and Golly! 70 people, all of whom probably received those identities from the corporations they work for. That is probably less that a thousandth of a percent of all crimes committed in the USA. And that is your evidence that illegal aliens are one of the biggest crime-commiting groups. And as Vicky and Dan pointed out, these are not violent crimes.
I agree completely. The seventy Americans whose identities the illegal aliens stole should not have been wearing such short skirts and what were they doing in that part of town at that hour anyway.
Policing is a public service, and like a lot of public services we have defunded it to the breaking point. Lefty defund the police champions are in perfect alignment with Club For Growth and Americans for Prosperity. Police and jails cost money we haven't been willing to spend.
People talk of the decrease in the 90s, and forget the massive injection of cash for more cops from the federal government in the form of grants to local police departments. Bill Clinton did that. We could do the same, and hire some of those college grads who are complaining about lack of employment.
Jails run by and responsible to local and state governments cost money, they are also a lot more humane than for profit prisons. Good secure state mental institutions could handle half of the people we now foist on our justice system. Recently my Democratic Party has spent money on huge salaries for non profits with all kinds of nutty agendas, money that would be better spent on my opinion on beat cops and secure humane jails.
I think of these things every time I consider the huge tax breaks I've been given, tax breaks larger than an entire year's earnings not so long ago.
It is interesting to hear leaders use old state's rights arguments to justify their resistance to President. Wonder how many realize that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was all about ending Reconstruction in the South. Probably time to re-evaluate those laws and come up with something better that fits today's era. Perhaps, re-reading Federalist 39 might be useful to rebalance national and federal power.
What the ridiculous Democratic Party simply fails to understand is that people in the urban centers where most of the violent crime is taking place? Do not give a fuck about statistics and 30 years ago that may be going down. What they care about is the tremendous a violent crime, especially murders and rapes that are taking place in this city right now. That is what interest them not some ridiculous statistics that the ridiculous Democrats keep putting out the worst Remo all is that fat piece of shit pritzker followed very closely by the governors of New York State and California. The latter of whom just endorsed the terrorist for the mayor of New York City.
Glad to se TLP is finally citing actual crime trends, namely that it peaked around 1995 and declined pretty steadily until 2020 (pandemic/Trump POTUS) when it had another, smaller spike. Since then, it has decreased back to levels last seen in the 1970s. https://jasher.substack.com/p/murder-officially-plunged-in-2024
"Serious about safely" is an OK slogan, but it needs to be elaborated upon, like " Crime is decreasing, but the job is not finished. We need to use methods that have been proven to reduce crime and concentrate crime-reducing resources on the populations and neighborhoods where crime is, unfortunately, still out of control."
Unfortunately, MAGAts are not interested in actually reducing crime but rather want to use CRIME! as a way of scaring people into voting for a punitive police state. Trump DOJ is anything but "serious about safety"
"The U.S. Department of Justice created an online crime solutions clearinghouse to encourage both research and reform in the criminal justice space. (This website will likely soon be an historical relic, as the Trump Justice Department has ceased ongoing funding for it.) With a concerted push from the federal government, there was a great flowering of data-driven initiatives, starting with policing (e.g., problem-oriented policing, hot spots policing, and community policing) and moving to the rest of the criminal justice system. Other examples include focused deterrence, problem-solving courts, reentry programs, and justice reinvestment."
I lived in Seattle when crime was supposedly dropping. It was reporting of crime that was dropping. One night my entire block had every car not in a garage broken into. Not a single person bothered reporting it (online only) because they knew it was a waste of their time. This is one anecdote of many. I no longer believe crime statistics.
"I lived in Seattle when crime was supposedly dropping. It was reporting of crime that was dropping" I don't have stats for Seattle, but this is not true nationwide. In both 1993 and 2022, 31.8 % of property victimizations were reported to police, with somewhat higher report rates in intervening years.
I may be the only one, but every time I hear crime is at 30-50 year lows, I see a smiling Mayorkas saying "the border is secure", for 4 years.
For one thing, crime was horrendous in the 70s. Moreover, it is not hard to reduce crime stats. Either technically or de facto decriminalize a lot of crimes, and under charge the remaining situations. If the goal of a city is fewer felonies, that is not statistically hard to achieve.
Nearly every crime but murder, has lesser included misdemeanors. Since the vast majority of crimes are pleas bargained down. The crime stats may have very little in common with what actually transpired, especially when DAs only seek incarceration for murders. They plea bargain down everything else. Also Blue States are loathe to charge migrants with felonies now, because a conviction is bound to result in deportation, and many Blue States do not wish to assist with deportation in any fashion.
When crime actually drops noticeably, gun sales go down, as do the sale of security systems. Neighborhoods gentrify faster. Perhaps that is the case, but people do not seem to feel crime has dropped. That generally has less to do with politics, and more to do with personal experience and that of friends and family members.
You really should read Jeff Asher's Substack page if you want to understand crime stats. Murder rates are indeed hard to fake, but they have declined since the historical peak in mid 1990s and since a smaller peak in 2022. Last two years have see historic % drops and rates are back to where they were in the 70s. Even Kash Patel and Donald Trump have recognized the drop. If other crime rates diverged from murder trends, you could make an argument for agencies massaging statistics, but this is not the case.
FBI publishes data on crimes reported to law enforcement. Bureau of Justice Statistics does large surveys asking people whether they were the victim of certain types of crime in the past six months. This survey captures crimes that were not reported to law enforcement. If the stats reported by these two agencies of the deep state diverged from each other, you could make the case that stats were being massaged, but this is not in fact the case.
People consistently report that crime in their area is less of a problem (which they presumably may have first hand knowledge about) than elsewhere (big cities) where their knowledge is obtained through the media.
As far as Southern border crossings during the Biden years are concerned, the stats reported then were accurate. To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any substantial revisions to the numbers reported back in the day. You may not have liked what was happening at the border, but it was being accurately reported at the time.
In Arizona, particularly Maricopa Co., the sheriff here said just a couple of years ago that 80% of the theft and violent crimes he dealt with were illegals.
It is unclear from this what it is thought that Democrats should actually do other than express more alarm about crime although it is falling and more sympathy for victims. As far as "Defunding," I don't know if that actually happened anywhere. According to the Chicago Civic federation, the Chicago Police appropriation increased almost 40% between 2018 and 2024. If I thought that sending the National Guard would appreciably reduce crime in Chicago, rather than just being a show of power, I'd be fine with it. Hey, it would be okay with me if they put guards on the red line to keep people from smoking and loud radio playing on the train but I doubt the guard would be asked to do anything so useful. If the nation really wants to federalize local criminal enforcement, that should be discussed. It would free up state and local governments, which are generally underfunded, to spend their money on other things. But is federal enforcement of local police what the country, even conservatives, really want? I certainly agree that the "defunding" movement was idiotic and suspect that the term was invented by the GOP and implanted in some naive minds through hypnosis as a way to discredit the idea that people should not be killed during routine traffic stops.
I agree about the questionable cost-effectiveness and constitutionality of using the National Guard and other components of the armed forces for general police work, although I support exceptions such as reinforcing the Border Patrol in securing the border and protecting federal properties against rioters (as in Portland, Oregon) when local authorities fail to do so.
However, the "defund the police" slogan was coined by extreme leftists, mainly in conjunction with their rioting over their greatly exaggerated claim that George Floyd's death in police custody was indicative of "systemic oppression" of blacks throughout the U.S. As little rationality as I generally attribute to MAGA Republicans, they have a valid point in attributing this one to "Progressive" Democrats.
Wait a minute, you have just said that “defund the police” was coined by “extreme leftists” and then written that the phrase was written by “progressive Democrats.” I was joking, of course, about the GOP dreaming up the “defund” meme and teaching leftists to use it through hypnosis. The GOP is not that smart. Some “Progressives” (of which I am NOT one) did adopt the suicidal “defund” term which was monumentally stupid. I lost a few “progressive” friends pointing that out in 2020-22. But it is not true that all progressives adopted that horrible terminology and even fewer acted on it.
I recognize that this has devolved into a largely academic discussion about the semantics of the term "progressives." But it strikes a familiar nerve with me in that I am a certifiable "moderate" political independent by current standards. I previously was active in the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party, whose members particularly admired Theodore Roosevelt for some combination of his "America First" views on the defense and global expansion of American culture, as well as "progressive" views on the role of the federal government in conservation of natural resources, consumer protection, and women's right to vote, among others.
Roosevelt's "progressive" positions (which were anathema to the "establishment" wing of the Republican Party at the time) led to him forming the Progressive Party (a.k.a., "Bull Moose Party") to contest the incumbent Republican President Howard Taft and the Democrat Woodrow Wilson in the presidential election. of 1912. Of course, Wilson won, and the rest is history, for better and worse.
As the term "progressive" has evolved in the English language, I continue to prefer the definition that Theodore Roosevelt embodied. That is a gradual improvement upon existing conditions -- both as enforced by government and as practiced by private institutions and private individuals -- that is openly and civilly discussed.
I continue to regard myself as being "progressive" with a lower-case "p.' But I think that most politically astute Americans have come to recognize that the "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party is essentially the "extreme leftist" wing, with little distinction between that and the "Socialist" wing, the "Marxist" wing, and the "Communist" wing. The common thread is that of centralized government control of socio-economic institutions to guarantee some people's opinion of "equitable" outcomes for all people regardless of what they contribute (or refuse to contribute) to society.
You misquote me in stating that "...you have just said that “defund the police” was coined by “extreme leftists” and then written that the phrase was written by “progressive Democrats.” In demonstrable fact, I stated that the "defund the police" was written by "Progressive (capital "P") Democrats." Get the distinction?
BTW, I have also had a long-time friend who was more "progressive" than me, with whom I had many mutually respectful political discussions. But he jumped on the "woke" bandwagon tactic of "shouting down" anyone who had the audacity to disagree with their ideology, and when he tried that on me, I cancelled him. Specifically, on the issue of Republicans enacting stricter controls on eligibility for voting. I regard that as a reasonable response to the Democrats' history of election fraud, even though I believe evidence -- especially provided by honest Republicans -- that the 2020 election was not "stolen" from Trump.
“Woke” is another horrible term. I recognize that the left did invent this and I was accused by a “progressive” that I was “unwoke” when I questioned the wisdom of making a big deal about what then Judge Kavanaugh did when he was a drunken 16 year old, assuming you believe his accuser. Now the right insists that they are not “woke” which 10 years ago would have meant that they are sleep walking. Many are sleep walking but I would not say that they all are.
We agree more than you may think. I sometimes call myself an “Old School Progressive” and I am certainly closer in spirit to the Roosevelt presidents than what you call the “extreme leftist” branch of the current Democratic Party. I bitterly resent the theft of the term “progressive” by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Dems and I am very annoyed by having to deny that I am “progressive” when attacked here by people who think that any deviation from Trump worship must mean that you are “progressive” and agree with the “defund the police” and the gender obsenssed.
We agree more than you think. I bitterly resent the theft of the term "progressive" by the "defund" and gender obsessed crowd and hate having to deny that I am "progressive" when defending myself from people here who apparently believe that any deviation from the Trump line makes one "progressive" and therefore part of what you call the extreme left. Alas, we all use terminology that is not well defined and misunderstandings arise.
Glad that we "progressives" (and I as a lower-case "republican") can agree on the fundamental idea of making gradual improvements through a civil process.
I don't need crime stats to tell me whether crime by illegal migrants is less or more than the rest of the population of my small sanctuary city. The number of citizens has decreased over the last 4 years while the population of illegal migrants has increased along with an increase in violent crime in the city. However, because of Connecticut's Trust Act, the violent criminals' status, legal or illegal, is not revealed. But, having lived in my city for nearly 40 years, I see, with my own eyes, the changes in my city over the last 4 years with many young black and brown men, alone and in groups, wandering the streets when one might think they should be working or in school. I hate to profile, but what am I to think about crime and my safety in this place I have lived nearly half my life?
Democrats can start by being against crime. That would be an impressive start, because so many Democratic policy makers and especially prosecutors (see: Larry Krasner, Philly, or Steve Descano, Fairfax County, VA) refused to prosecute crimes or keep violent perpetrators in jail. The evidence is there for all to see. Come out against cashless bail and adopt the "broken windows" approach, and you'll be off to a fine start. Start showing support for police, instead of "defunding" them. And make sure every town and city collects and reports honest data - many have stopped entirely, and the lack of credible statistics is also evident (see: Washington, DC, and many major cities). https://www.nssf.org/articles/america-has-a-crime-reporting-problem/
There are reasons voters trust Reps more to tackle crime, then Dems. Anyone who was an adult in the 90s, understands how to tame crime, enforce Broken Windows. Charge and incarcerate the maximum. Dems constantly beat the drum of gun control, but many Blue City DAs refuse to charge gun enhancements, that can add 3-10 years to a prison sentence, when a gun is utilized in a crime.
One perpetual challenge is a lack of police in cities that embraced Defund the Police. During DtP mania, Seattle was so short of detectives, for a time, they stopped investigating adult rape unless it was in conjunction with a murder. Someone leaked an internal memo, and the city was shamed into hiring more detectives. Think about that. A major US city giving rapists a free pass, due to a lack of personnel.
Some mistakes are harder to correct than others. Defund the Police still stings. Many Blue Cities may be permanently understaffed. A FL girlfriend, lives next door to a retired cop, who works part time for De Santis, wining and dining cops, all over the country. They recruit those with excellent records, approaching their first level of retirement, often in their 40s. The pitch is take your early pension, come to FL where the weather and schools are great, state income tax nonexistent. Flexible schedules, great pay, most of all, when the stuff hits the fan, the state has your back. How many Dem Governors or Mayors are that forward thinking?
Also I think that in Democrat run cities they are soft on crime in the sense that they do not arrest people … as we saw with the person who murdered the young woman in Charlotte. It brings their crime statistics down that way
Personally I do not trust them on this issue … what comes across is they are more concerned for the criminals than the victims esp if said victim is not one of their ‘groups’
That person was arrested immediately and is now facing trial. He will probably get life imprisonment.
Yes-After something like 14 prior arrests. His most recent release, shortly before he murdered that young woman, was more or less done on a pinky swear to the judge that he would be a good Boy Scout in the future.
Justice came too late for Iryna Zarutska.
Yes, the system failed her killer, too. A paranoid schizophrenic with a history of violence was never forced to get the care he needed.
He's on a psychiatric evaluation. Are you certain about imprisonment?
I’m certain people with a long track record of violence shouldn’t be in circulation in society. If I had a magic wand I’d have Bippity-Boppity forced her killer into treatment long before he got this bad. There are, tragically, a lot of psychiatric patients in prison who shouldn’t be there, but thanks to _One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest_, involuntary commitment in a high security mental hospital isn’t a thing anymore. If we are left with a binary choice of 1) Psychotics randomly stabbing people to death or 2) Imprisonment, for the greater good I gotta vote for 2.
Have you seen the movie minority report? It's based on a Phillip K. Dick novel about a future society in which they arrested people before they actually committed crimes. That's basically what you're advocating.
I have indeed seen it. Great movie. Been a while, but IIRC a pool of clairvoyants have their capabilities supercharged in a magic swimming pool and are then used to predict crimes before they happen. If something like 2/3 of the clairvoyants agree the future crime is going to happen, the would-be criminals are arrested before they can commit their crimes and given some kind of intervention (prison?), ostensibly with a 100% success rate. What a win! Nobody even thinks about committing crime anymore!
Only, turns out the clairvoyants aren’t 100% accurate (sometimes one disagrees in a “minority report”) It also turns out one can fool their second sight or whatever, leading to reasonable doubt about their certainty. The program is shut down.
And I’m unclear how any of that applies in this case. The problem _wasn’t_ that DeCarlos Brown Jr. was arrested because someone had a “vibe” that he was _going_ to do something. The problem was a catch-and-release program that failed to _keep_ him out of circulation, preferably getting treatment, _after_ he had done _14_ crimes, three of which were felonies and one of which was an assault on his own sister.
We don’t have clairvoyants in a big tub of saltwater, but a long track record of _past_ violent behavior is excellent at predicting _future_ violent behavior, absent some significant intervention.
I call myself a liberal, though there are those who would like to vote me out of the club for some of my views, among which is that the right of a violent paranoid schizophrenic to roam free hurting and killing does not trump the right of a young woman to live through her commute.
“Meet voters where they are and treat their concerns with respect?” Yes first step. Second step is to implement EFFECTIVE policy to make things better. Not policy that sounds good, it must be policy that has actually reduced crime in many places.
One goal might be for every blue city to see that a criminal referred, by the court, for a mental evaluation, BE EVALUATIONED. And have the court name the person responsible that is done. I’d have the court name the mayor of the city personally responsible to report back to the court, so no one is lost in the system.
If the Charlotte murderer had been evaluated, as directed by the court in July, Iryna Zarutska would probably be alive today. And probably Decarlos Brown would never rob someone at gunpoint again as he did last July. Charlotte would have one less dangerous person moving freely about. And Decarlos might get the care he needs.
Like all effective policy; it is hard work, consistently enforced, with predictable consequences. City, by city the Democrats party will. Increase the quality of life and begin the long road back to power..
What was frustrating for me and my wife (a former police officer) in the two years before the election was watching Democrats throw the election away.
They took so many stands that were not popular with the public, policing was one of the most obvious. DEFUND! In comment section after comment section calling police officers names.
We said, everywhere we could: "Stop!!!! This is a losing position!" Nobody listened.
During the election we wrote a blog entry about why we could not vote for Harris. She took a defunding position, plus a lot of mish mash about curing all of society so there wouldn't be criminals. And that the answer to crime was not more police officers, showing a complete disregard of years of evidence (and she had been an Attorney General?)
So, we wrote a blog about her position on policing and progressives' position on policing....positions we knew were losers. Our blog is mostly about our travels and our grandchildren, and it's not monetized, but here is that entry. It's been viewed hundreds of times.
https://livinginthebedofapickup.blogspot.com/2024/08/why-we-wont-vote-for-harris-her-anti.html
"in comment section after comment section", not in actual Democratic campaign platforms or actual laws.
Teed:
She was also a co-sponsor of the George Floyd Justice in Policing bill, which every police officer would see as a slam against them. She made no statements against the BLM protests that resulted in 3 billion dollars worth of damage and ruined the livelihoods of countless small business owners. What does this say to the public?
And just recently, some congressperson re-introduced this bill. Will Democrats ever learn? https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/md-rep-reintroduces-george-floyd-211210305.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
She also, as Attorney General of California, refused to seek the death penalty in the killing of a police officer, even though the voters had approved it. What does this say about her attitude and what does this say to the public?
according to your link "The act is a comprehensive policing reform bill aimed at holding police accountable, ending racial profiling, and changing law enforcement culture." Why is this a problem to the police who are not the "few bad apples"?
It assumes something very dumb. And that is that the problem is not one of criminals but it is a problem of policing.
AND the public hated it. They see the problems with crime being criminals, not police.
"changing law enforcement culture" is gobbledegook.
Not only that, if you read the link in our blog, what this kind of thing did was cause police all over the nation to quit. And who did that hurt the most? Low income and minority populations.
So these silly acts by people who have never been in policing ended up hurting the very people Democrats used to protect.
Harris called for defunding. We have the video. During the campaign. And before the campaign. And she NEVER slammed the idea.
So, yes, it was in Democratic campaign platforms as her position on the issue. The Democrat running for President espoused this. Isn't that enough for you? And progressives all over the map were saying it. Loudly.
Could you share that link here, please.
I did. It's in the link we provided that is on our blog.
There is mounds of data in that blog. It would be good for you to read it all and see why people like you ended up giving the election to Trump, because your progressive position protects criminals, not the public.
Realize this Teed: You lost. The public turned against you.
And what does this mean: It means progressives had better change or keep losing. But they won't because, like you, they continue to think they are "right."
I did take a look at it, your blog, and saw that it contains a lot of useful information. It's clearly an honest advocacy site, and when I care a lot about an issue, I try to read advocates from both sides of an issue. However, my priorities right now don't include evaluating someone who isn't even running for office anymore., So I'm not gonna take the trouble to follow this up. I will say that with regard to the links you just sent me I wouldn't consider someone to be anti-police who said "We need to take a look at our budget and see if it reflects the right priorities". and"you can both be tough and smart on crime, and it requires funding police, but it also requires funding rehabilitation and things that might criminal justice system safer. You can do both. "
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020-positions.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020
There are other links to her anti-police statements in the blog entry I posted for you.
There is nothing about policing, or funding of the police, in the New York Times link above.
Thanks Teed. the purpose of the NYT article was to provide background as to why I had said that positions she took, including on policing, changed when she ran for President.
But the place where I might disagree with you is that it is critical to have an accurate diagnosis before one can implement a treatment. That was my profession.
And until we can adequately and fully diagnose why someone could lose to Trump and why the Democratic party is in the toilet in this country then we can't fix the problems.
But there is a lot of denial among progressives. Study after study showing that people don't like progressive positions, but I've not seen or read a single progressive say "I was wrong." "I need to change."
Instead, all I have seen is digging in of heels. "Let's run AOC!!!"
As a life-long Democrat (50 years of voting), it was maddening for me to sit and watch progressive ideas destroy my beloved party. We could tell they were going to lose 2 years before the election, because we know a lot of Republicans and Independents and would know how they would react to the progressive rhetoric.
Now, the backlash is horrible. And that was predictable too. Because that is how human nature is.
We yelled, we explained, we went on and on in every forum possible trying to tell Democrats that progressive ideas were killers.
I see no possible answer for Democrats on crime. The two biggest crime-committing groups, blacks and illegal aliens, are key components of the D voter strategy. (The latter is being deported by Trump in record numbers---can the Ds claim they'll do better?)
More crackdown on crime equals more black men in jail. It's just a simple fact. I don't see how they get around that.
Is there evidence that the illegal aliens are one of the two biggest crime-committing groups? If so, I'd like to see it. Thanks.
Identity theft is especially common among illegal aliens. Consider the dozens of cases at just one employer: "OMAHA, Neb. (KCAU) — The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released more information on June 18 about a raid at an Omaha, Nebraska business. ICE said they uncovered a “massive identity theft” impacting unsuspecting U.S. citizens as a result of a raid at Glenn Valley Foods on June 10. Federal authorities said a multi-agency investigation led by ICE found that about 70 illegal aliens were using stolen Social Security numbers and identities. Officials said those aliens used the identities to unlawfully get employment authorization, health benefits, and wages." source: msn.com
That makes sense. What about crimes against people, what we usually think about crimes? What I have read (seen no data on) is that their crime rate is lower. But, as I said, I'm devoid of data which is usually what I seek.
Thanks for the response. Dan
Wow and Golly! 70 people, all of whom probably received those identities from the corporations they work for. That is probably less that a thousandth of a percent of all crimes committed in the USA. And that is your evidence that illegal aliens are one of the biggest crime-commiting groups. And as Vicky and Dan pointed out, these are not violent crimes.
I agree completely. The seventy Americans whose identities the illegal aliens stole should not have been wearing such short skirts and what were they doing in that part of town at that hour anyway.
Policing is a public service, and like a lot of public services we have defunded it to the breaking point. Lefty defund the police champions are in perfect alignment with Club For Growth and Americans for Prosperity. Police and jails cost money we haven't been willing to spend.
People talk of the decrease in the 90s, and forget the massive injection of cash for more cops from the federal government in the form of grants to local police departments. Bill Clinton did that. We could do the same, and hire some of those college grads who are complaining about lack of employment.
Jails run by and responsible to local and state governments cost money, they are also a lot more humane than for profit prisons. Good secure state mental institutions could handle half of the people we now foist on our justice system. Recently my Democratic Party has spent money on huge salaries for non profits with all kinds of nutty agendas, money that would be better spent on my opinion on beat cops and secure humane jails.
I think of these things every time I consider the huge tax breaks I've been given, tax breaks larger than an entire year's earnings not so long ago.
It is interesting to hear leaders use old state's rights arguments to justify their resistance to President. Wonder how many realize that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was all about ending Reconstruction in the South. Probably time to re-evaluate those laws and come up with something better that fits today's era. Perhaps, re-reading Federalist 39 might be useful to rebalance national and federal power.
What the ridiculous Democratic Party simply fails to understand is that people in the urban centers where most of the violent crime is taking place? Do not give a fuck about statistics and 30 years ago that may be going down. What they care about is the tremendous a violent crime, especially murders and rapes that are taking place in this city right now. That is what interest them not some ridiculous statistics that the ridiculous Democrats keep putting out the worst Remo all is that fat piece of shit pritzker followed very closely by the governors of New York State and California. The latter of whom just endorsed the terrorist for the mayor of New York City.
Glad to se TLP is finally citing actual crime trends, namely that it peaked around 1995 and declined pretty steadily until 2020 (pandemic/Trump POTUS) when it had another, smaller spike. Since then, it has decreased back to levels last seen in the 1970s. https://jasher.substack.com/p/murder-officially-plunged-in-2024
"Serious about safely" is an OK slogan, but it needs to be elaborated upon, like " Crime is decreasing, but the job is not finished. We need to use methods that have been proven to reduce crime and concentrate crime-reducing resources on the populations and neighborhoods where crime is, unfortunately, still out of control."
Unfortunately, MAGAts are not interested in actually reducing crime but rather want to use CRIME! as a way of scaring people into voting for a punitive police state. Trump DOJ is anything but "serious about safety"
"The U.S. Department of Justice created an online crime solutions clearinghouse to encourage both research and reform in the criminal justice space. (This website will likely soon be an historical relic, as the Trump Justice Department has ceased ongoing funding for it.) With a concerted push from the federal government, there was a great flowering of data-driven initiatives, starting with policing (e.g., problem-oriented policing, hot spots policing, and community policing) and moving to the rest of the criminal justice system. Other examples include focused deterrence, problem-solving courts, reentry programs, and justice reinvestment."
I lived in Seattle when crime was supposedly dropping. It was reporting of crime that was dropping. One night my entire block had every car not in a garage broken into. Not a single person bothered reporting it (online only) because they knew it was a waste of their time. This is one anecdote of many. I no longer believe crime statistics.
"I lived in Seattle when crime was supposedly dropping. It was reporting of crime that was dropping" I don't have stats for Seattle, but this is not true nationwide. In both 1993 and 2022, 31.8 % of property victimizations were reported to police, with somewhat higher report rates in intervening years.
:https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/
I may be the only one, but every time I hear crime is at 30-50 year lows, I see a smiling Mayorkas saying "the border is secure", for 4 years.
For one thing, crime was horrendous in the 70s. Moreover, it is not hard to reduce crime stats. Either technically or de facto decriminalize a lot of crimes, and under charge the remaining situations. If the goal of a city is fewer felonies, that is not statistically hard to achieve.
Nearly every crime but murder, has lesser included misdemeanors. Since the vast majority of crimes are pleas bargained down. The crime stats may have very little in common with what actually transpired, especially when DAs only seek incarceration for murders. They plea bargain down everything else. Also Blue States are loathe to charge migrants with felonies now, because a conviction is bound to result in deportation, and many Blue States do not wish to assist with deportation in any fashion.
When crime actually drops noticeably, gun sales go down, as do the sale of security systems. Neighborhoods gentrify faster. Perhaps that is the case, but people do not seem to feel crime has dropped. That generally has less to do with politics, and more to do with personal experience and that of friends and family members.
You really should read Jeff Asher's Substack page if you want to understand crime stats. Murder rates are indeed hard to fake, but they have declined since the historical peak in mid 1990s and since a smaller peak in 2022. Last two years have see historic % drops and rates are back to where they were in the 70s. Even Kash Patel and Donald Trump have recognized the drop. If other crime rates diverged from murder trends, you could make an argument for agencies massaging statistics, but this is not the case.
FBI publishes data on crimes reported to law enforcement. Bureau of Justice Statistics does large surveys asking people whether they were the victim of certain types of crime in the past six months. This survey captures crimes that were not reported to law enforcement. If the stats reported by these two agencies of the deep state diverged from each other, you could make the case that stats were being massaged, but this is not in fact the case.
People consistently report that crime in their area is less of a problem (which they presumably may have first hand knowledge about) than elsewhere (big cities) where their knowledge is obtained through the media.
As far as Southern border crossings during the Biden years are concerned, the stats reported then were accurate. To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any substantial revisions to the numbers reported back in the day. You may not have liked what was happening at the border, but it was being accurately reported at the time.
.
I always like to go back to first principles which in this case are Peel's Principles.
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/welcome/crimj408/history_04.html
The man invented modern policing and his thoughts are more relevant than ever.
"Democrats need a better answer for crime" and it is nowhere to be found in this article.
In Arizona, particularly Maricopa Co., the sheriff here said just a couple of years ago that 80% of the theft and violent crimes he dealt with were illegals.
He also said for years Obama wasn't born in the United States, and produced zero evidence.
Arpaio is the opposite of a reliable source for anything.
It is unclear from this what it is thought that Democrats should actually do other than express more alarm about crime although it is falling and more sympathy for victims. As far as "Defunding," I don't know if that actually happened anywhere. According to the Chicago Civic federation, the Chicago Police appropriation increased almost 40% between 2018 and 2024. If I thought that sending the National Guard would appreciably reduce crime in Chicago, rather than just being a show of power, I'd be fine with it. Hey, it would be okay with me if they put guards on the red line to keep people from smoking and loud radio playing on the train but I doubt the guard would be asked to do anything so useful. If the nation really wants to federalize local criminal enforcement, that should be discussed. It would free up state and local governments, which are generally underfunded, to spend their money on other things. But is federal enforcement of local police what the country, even conservatives, really want? I certainly agree that the "defunding" movement was idiotic and suspect that the term was invented by the GOP and implanted in some naive minds through hypnosis as a way to discredit the idea that people should not be killed during routine traffic stops.
I agree about the questionable cost-effectiveness and constitutionality of using the National Guard and other components of the armed forces for general police work, although I support exceptions such as reinforcing the Border Patrol in securing the border and protecting federal properties against rioters (as in Portland, Oregon) when local authorities fail to do so.
However, the "defund the police" slogan was coined by extreme leftists, mainly in conjunction with their rioting over their greatly exaggerated claim that George Floyd's death in police custody was indicative of "systemic oppression" of blacks throughout the U.S. As little rationality as I generally attribute to MAGA Republicans, they have a valid point in attributing this one to "Progressive" Democrats.
Wait a minute, you have just said that “defund the police” was coined by “extreme leftists” and then written that the phrase was written by “progressive Democrats.” I was joking, of course, about the GOP dreaming up the “defund” meme and teaching leftists to use it through hypnosis. The GOP is not that smart. Some “Progressives” (of which I am NOT one) did adopt the suicidal “defund” term which was monumentally stupid. I lost a few “progressive” friends pointing that out in 2020-22. But it is not true that all progressives adopted that horrible terminology and even fewer acted on it.
I recognize that this has devolved into a largely academic discussion about the semantics of the term "progressives." But it strikes a familiar nerve with me in that I am a certifiable "moderate" political independent by current standards. I previously was active in the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party, whose members particularly admired Theodore Roosevelt for some combination of his "America First" views on the defense and global expansion of American culture, as well as "progressive" views on the role of the federal government in conservation of natural resources, consumer protection, and women's right to vote, among others.
Roosevelt's "progressive" positions (which were anathema to the "establishment" wing of the Republican Party at the time) led to him forming the Progressive Party (a.k.a., "Bull Moose Party") to contest the incumbent Republican President Howard Taft and the Democrat Woodrow Wilson in the presidential election. of 1912. Of course, Wilson won, and the rest is history, for better and worse.
As the term "progressive" has evolved in the English language, I continue to prefer the definition that Theodore Roosevelt embodied. That is a gradual improvement upon existing conditions -- both as enforced by government and as practiced by private institutions and private individuals -- that is openly and civilly discussed.
I continue to regard myself as being "progressive" with a lower-case "p.' But I think that most politically astute Americans have come to recognize that the "Progressive" wing of the Democratic Party is essentially the "extreme leftist" wing, with little distinction between that and the "Socialist" wing, the "Marxist" wing, and the "Communist" wing. The common thread is that of centralized government control of socio-economic institutions to guarantee some people's opinion of "equitable" outcomes for all people regardless of what they contribute (or refuse to contribute) to society.
You misquote me in stating that "...you have just said that “defund the police” was coined by “extreme leftists” and then written that the phrase was written by “progressive Democrats.” In demonstrable fact, I stated that the "defund the police" was written by "Progressive (capital "P") Democrats." Get the distinction?
BTW, I have also had a long-time friend who was more "progressive" than me, with whom I had many mutually respectful political discussions. But he jumped on the "woke" bandwagon tactic of "shouting down" anyone who had the audacity to disagree with their ideology, and when he tried that on me, I cancelled him. Specifically, on the issue of Republicans enacting stricter controls on eligibility for voting. I regard that as a reasonable response to the Democrats' history of election fraud, even though I believe evidence -- especially provided by honest Republicans -- that the 2020 election was not "stolen" from Trump.
“Woke” is another horrible term. I recognize that the left did invent this and I was accused by a “progressive” that I was “unwoke” when I questioned the wisdom of making a big deal about what then Judge Kavanaugh did when he was a drunken 16 year old, assuming you believe his accuser. Now the right insists that they are not “woke” which 10 years ago would have meant that they are sleep walking. Many are sleep walking but I would not say that they all are.
We agree more than you may think. I sometimes call myself an “Old School Progressive” and I am certainly closer in spirit to the Roosevelt presidents than what you call the “extreme leftist” branch of the current Democratic Party. I bitterly resent the theft of the term “progressive” by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Dems and I am very annoyed by having to deny that I am “progressive” when attacked here by people who think that any deviation from Trump worship must mean that you are “progressive” and agree with the “defund the police” and the gender obsenssed.
We agree more than you think. I bitterly resent the theft of the term "progressive" by the "defund" and gender obsessed crowd and hate having to deny that I am "progressive" when defending myself from people here who apparently believe that any deviation from the Trump line makes one "progressive" and therefore part of what you call the extreme left. Alas, we all use terminology that is not well defined and misunderstandings arise.
Glad that we "progressives" (and I as a lower-case "republican") can agree on the fundamental idea of making gradual improvements through a civil process.
I don't need crime stats to tell me whether crime by illegal migrants is less or more than the rest of the population of my small sanctuary city. The number of citizens has decreased over the last 4 years while the population of illegal migrants has increased along with an increase in violent crime in the city. However, because of Connecticut's Trust Act, the violent criminals' status, legal or illegal, is not revealed. But, having lived in my city for nearly 40 years, I see, with my own eyes, the changes in my city over the last 4 years with many young black and brown men, alone and in groups, wandering the streets when one might think they should be working or in school. I hate to profile, but what am I to think about crime and my safety in this place I have lived nearly half my life?
When you know you’re right, you can’t be wrong. Right? There are a lot of hills to die on. Sad to die for the wrong cause.