Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:31:20 PM
It has already been
mocked elsewhere, but
this article is more disturbing than amusing.
First some background. Apparently, there has been a recent rise in murders in LA, and the LA city council was considering a "symbolic" ban on homicide for 40 hours to "make a statement". After debate, the bill was defeated in favor of a resolution to use the anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination to "raise awareness about violence".
First, the obvious question. With all the issues facing a big city like LA, do they really have time to waste debating non-binding resolutions outlawing homicide for a weekend? And, if they do, could we have a little shorter session and pay them a little less? It is the question I always ask when I hear about all the symbolic votes and non-binding resolutions coming out of congress. If they have that much free time, why not shorten the legislative session, cut the pay of the congressmen and their staffs, and let the taxpayers suffer a little less. I doubt one person in a million will miss the non-binding resolutions. And if they do, let them pay for congress to sit to declare Kansas "the unofficial breadbasket of the US" or recognize the best high school basketball team in Texas.
But much more troubling than the simple waste of time and money is the fact that a legislature thinks this resolution, or "raising awareness" is the way to solve homicide. The same people who pass these laws are the people who oppose any sort of stricter sentencing. They refuse to imprison murderers for a reasonable amount of time, and instead think symbolic gestures will somehow make murder stop.
I have a tip for them, murders happen because no one thinks they are going to jail. And, even if they are caught, they get back out swiftly enough that they can commit multiple murders, even if they are repeatedly caught. The simple solution to murder. First, keep murderers in jail. Second, make the sentences long enough that people may think twice before committing murder.
Of course, this means accepting that there may be "racial disparities" in the prison population. You have to learn to face down activists and say "We put the guilty in jail, we don't have quotas" and explain to the critics that just because a disproportionate number of murderers are black at a given moment it does not mean the criminal justice system is racist.
But no politician has the nerve. They will continue to appease various activists by weakening our justice system, and then wonder why crime continues to be a problem. Which is why we get these "non-binding resolutions" against crime. It is safe to say you are "against crime", no one will argue with you about that, but taking the steps needed to actually stop crime tends to step on too many toes.
You have to wonder if, a century ago, anyone would have imagined that the pro-crime lobby would actually control most of our cities one day.