Crime And Lack Of Punishment

Effectively dealing with the criminal element is one of our society’s most divisive issues. Extreme stances range from setting everyone free to police themselves to locking everyone up and throwing away the keys, but neither is especially productive.

---

“Black Victim To Black Victor” Book by Adam B. Coleman. Rated 4 1/2 Stars on Amazon!

“Adam B. Coleman puts his arm around the people he has lived amongst his whole life, providing them with honest and incredibly personal insight.”

“Wow. I had no idea when I started to read this book, how important the message is for every single one of us.”

Wrong Speak Publishing’s First Book! Purchase Now from WSP’s Store or Amazon!

---

There are factions that feel most people are generally good (true), that some people reluctantly commit smaller crimes like petit larceny for survival (sometimes true), and that socioeconomic circumstances often create feelings of despair which lead some to conclude that crime is the only alternative (sadly, also sometimes true). Since they believe those circumstances are often the result of a racist system (occasionally true, if overstated), they conclude that any punishment of the offenders is racist. Unfortunately, despite some percentage of reality in racial disadvantage claims, the ones who suffer most are those minorities who rise above any perceived disadvantages, who strive for success and refuse to let a victim mentality hold them back.

Per capita, minority-on-minority crime is the most prevalent type by a landslide. The vast majority of perpetrators swim in the same circles, repeat offenders who game the system and their law-abiding neighbors to get what they want. Over 99% of minorities manage to get through each year without committing any violent crimes like murder and robbery, yet the less than 1% who do are committing over 50% of the total.

This makes it apparent that even allowing for some racial disadvantage, the decision to embark on a criminal life is made by the individuals who choose to do so. They don’t have it any worse than their racial peers; they’ve just chosen to take the easier way at the expense of everyone else.

There are some legitimate arguments against mass incarceration, far too many to list in a single article. We can’t simply dismiss them all because we find them distasteful. But like many other progressive stances, they often cherry-pick only the supportive statistics while ignoring the contrary ones. Additionally, their proposed solutions transfer the burden onto those who choose to respect the law, who ironically are often impoverished minorities.

It is argued that blacks comprise about 12% of the population, but 38.5% of overall prisoners, 40% of those on death row, and 34% of those actually executed, an apparently tremendous racial disparity. However, this data ignores that blacks also commit over 50% of reported murders despite their significantly lesser numbers and that 80-90% of their victims are also black.

It is argued that the poor need to steal in order to survive, but the number of poor people greatly outnumber those who choose to commit theft. Most large cities report that the majority of theft is committed by a comparatively small number of recidivist individuals, who have been released from dozens of arrests, brazenly filling garbage bags with unnecessary items for resale on the street - its own tax-free business. This results in higher prices, store shutdowns, and layoffs, all of which disproportionately and negatively affect the poor. None of this resembles the Dickensian image of a starving child stealing an apple from a fruit cart. We also have social programs which, though they don’t finance extravagance, ensure that no one goes hungry when used appropriately.

It is argued that work is scarce, but statistics show otherwise; there are about 1.8 jobs available for every unemployed person. Of course, this varies by location, but it shows that the problem is more about willingness than opportunity. Many people would rather complain that crime is their only option than work a job they feel is beneath them, or (in some cases) work at all.

It is argued that prison life is inhospitable. It's supposed to be, and the prisoners are often what make it so. Prisoners could organize to create a more safe and hospitable atmosphere, but they clearly don’t have such inclinations - that’s part of why they’re in prison. And if it was a country club, what would be the deterrent?

It is argued that most people, left to their own devices, will make good choices. Perhaps, but without ramifications, those who won’t will freely victimize those who do. This is not theoretical; every place where “reforms” have been instituted has seen dramatic jumps in crime numbers. Cite any unfairness you want, the solutions can’t come at the expense of the innocent.

Statistics in small sample sizes can be deceiving, but in large sample sizes, they are illuminating. It can’t be a coincidence that almost every major American city is run by the left and that the majority of violent crimes happen there. Handcuffing the police and the public from being able to defend themselves, combined with revolving door justice, exacerbates the problem. Whatever your personal philosophy, you can’t deny statistical facts. Should we give up trying to solve these issues? Not at all, but the answer to mass incarceration can’t be mass victimization.

When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York (he’s gone off the deep end now, but he was an excellent mayor then) from 1993-2001, stronger and more focused anti-crime measures (expanding initiatives begun under his predecessor David Dinkins) resulted in a precipitous drop in all crime. Contrary to leftist reason, this acted as more of a deterrent than a mass incarceration technique. The prison population rose during the initial phases of implementation, though it didn’t continue to rise as many expected but instead reduced dramatically as potential perpetrators realized what zero tolerance meant.

This of course most benefited poor and minority communities, as those are where crime is most prevalent, and called out the lies of progressive reforms - both crime and incarceration decreased simultaneously. Indirectly, businesses flourished, tourists felt safe, and the economy improved.

In addition to direct crime numbers, revolving door justice has a more subtle butterfly effect. The recent “vigilante” (incorrect by definition) death in the New York subway system is a microcosm of this. Regardless of your interpretation of that specific event, the fact remains that it was only possible because of a shortcoming in dealing with criminals (as well as the mentally ill). Countless crime victims could have been spared if their offenders were not set free to commit those crimes in the first place.

In the final analysis, criminal behavior is a choice available to every one of us. The majority choose not to engage in this behavior, for reasons ranging from personal pride, to a desire not to cause hurt, to an avoidance of repercussions. For those in the latter category, soft punishments remove any disincentive. It should be made clear to those who would choose crime that the risk is not worth the reward. The benefits for all will follow, including for them.

For a more in-depth analysis of crime and other related subjects, I invite you to read and comment on my book, “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism”, available at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004