The Politics of Violence
Photos
On Wednesday, September 19, K-9 Plymouth Township Officer Brad Fox was laid to rest after being shot to death by a career criminal who should have been sitting in a jail cell. He was killed by Andrew Charles Thomas a former key suspect in the 1999 disappearance of his fiance and was currently on probation for theft and had assaulted a cop in his past.
As a former paramedic who worked closely with cops, I have insight into what daily life is like for them.
I can say with 100% complete conviction that because of bleeding heart liberals, our cops, our friends, and our family, are not safe. Liberals care more about the rights of criminals than they do victims. It is disgraceful. Liberals are soft on crime - believing this will reform criminals.
It doesn't work. Case in point: When cops arrest criminals from Philadelphia - they freak out because they were caught in Montgomery County and know they will be going to jail. Montgomery County is a bit tougher on criminals (though still not as tough as they could be). Criminals admit by their own voice, they are more likely to commit a crime in an area that is soft on crime.
Every cop killed in the last 10 years has been killed by a career criminal.
On November 17, 2006 - Sgt. Timothy Simpson was killed by William Allan Foster, a junkie, career thief from Levittown. In August of 2006, 3 months prior to Simpson's murder, our own Magisterial District Justice Robert Gaffney of New Britain allowed bail after Foster's Aug. 7 arrest of assaulting a police officer.
What's the solution?
1. Justice for the Victim
The focus of the criminal justice system should be to obtain justice for the victim. Our current criminal justice system has increasingly viewed the crime's victim as irrelevant to the justice process. When it comes to sentencing, the first goal should be to make the victim whole while holding the criminal responsible for his deed. The criminal justice system should place emphasis on restitution. Other appropriate goals, such as deterrence and punishment, are secondary.
2. End Prohibition
Our criminal justice system fails to render justice to the victims of crime because it spends an inordinate amount of resources on "crimes" that do not directly harm the person or property of another. More than 350,000 Americans are in jail today for victimless (or consensual) crimes, such as gambling, drug use, etc. An additional 1.5 million are on parole or probation.
Of all our current law enforcement strategies, none has failed as dramatically as the "War on Drugs." By attempting to solve America's drug problem through criminal law, the government is repeating the same mistakes made 75 years ago during alcohol prohibition.
Just as alcohol prohibition gave America Al Capone, the mafia, drug prohibition has brought us the Crips, Bloods and Jamaican Posses. At the same time, drug prohibition has failed miserably in its primary goal -- curbing drug use.
The correlation between drug prohibition and violence can no longer be doubted. America saw its highest murder rate during the years of prohibition. In the years after prohibition's repeal, the murder rate steadily declined. Only after the beginning of the crackdown on illegal drugs in the 1960's did murder rates begin to edge back up. Today the murder rate again resembles the prohibition years.
While other factors, such as the breakdown of the family and the rise of the welfare state (and Obama is increasing the welfare state drastically) contributed to this rise, a vast body of evidence links the "war on drugs" to increased violence and crime.
3. Get Tough on Real Crime
In part because of the diversion of resources to fight victimless crime (see above), real criminals increasingly escape punishment. People should be held accountable for their actions. This includes immediate and just punishment for those guilty of committing violence against others.
When a Judge imposes a sentence, the criminal should serve that sentence. Parole and other forms of early release should be severely restricted. Virtually every study on the subject has shown that parolees have a high recidivism rate. Every cop killed in the last 10 years has been at the hand of a career criminal out on parole.
One deeply disturbing trend is the increasing tendency to excuse individuals from responsibility for the crimes they commit. But isn't this trending in every area of life? Even Obama continues to blame Bush for his failing policies, almost four years later!
4. Protect the Right to Self-Defense
Americans have always viewed the right to self-defense as fundamental. Our Founding Fathers enshrined it in the Second Amendment. Yet, now, not only is the government failing to protect us, but it seems increasingly determined to disarm law-abiding Americans, thereby preventing them from exercising this fundamental right. Not only is the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution, it reduces crime and victimization.
While opponents (mainly Democrats) of the right to keep and bear arms frequently cite studies showing that individuals are more likely to kill an innocent person than protect a potential victim, those studies are seriously flawed. In reality, as many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun.
Moreover defense with guns is one of the safest responses to violent crime. Defense with a gun results in fewer injuries to the defender (defender injured 17.4% of the time) than resisting with less powerful weapons (knives, 40.3%; other weapons, 22%; hands, 50.8%, and evasion, 34.9%). In fact, defense with a gun is safer than not resisting at all (24.7%). This is particularly important to women, the elderly, the handicapped, the weak and infirm, those most vulnerable to an attacker.
5. Address the Root Causes of Crime
The root causes of crime are no mystery. As Peter Greenwood, a criminal justice expert with the RAND Corporation explains, "We know the risk factors for violence and what creates it. Kids being born into poverty, to parents who can't take care of them." It is our current social welfare system that has created the risk factors that breed crime.
Nearly all social scientists agree that there is a direct link between out-of-wedlock births and social problems such as crime and drug abuse. For example, one study found that children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Another study found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single-parent households were twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father was present. With the rate of out-of-wedlock births now over 22% among white women and over 60% among blacks, increased violence and crime is virtually inevitable.
At the same time, social scientists link the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births with the availability of welfare. The Department of Health and Human Services found that a 50% increase in welfare benefits led to a 43% increase in out-of-wedlock births. A second study found that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150%.
Consider another factor: government schools that fail to provide young people with the skills to earn a living in today's world. The statistics on American education are bad enough overall, but in America's inner cities public schools have failed completely -- dropout rates exceed 50% and those who complete school are often unable to read their diplomas. The public schools are "monopoly bureaucratic institutions, politically controlled in districts so large as to be virtually immune from political pressure, certainly pressure from uneducated and unorganized parents."
While wealthy and middle-class parents can escape failed school systems, either moving to better school districts or sending their children to private schools, poor parents and their children are left behind. Only by guaranteeing every parent the right to choose their child's school can we improve the opportunity for inner city children to get the education and skills necessary to have a future besides crime. - This means Vouchers.
But, even with adequate skills, poor inner city youth often cannot find work because government tax and regulatory policies have so limited the opportunity to start a business or create jobs. We must offer inner city youths hope for a future other than crime. This means repealing regulations and taxes that stand in the way of entrepreneurs who seek to open new businesses or expand existing ones.
Poverty, poor family structure, and lack of educational opportunity are not excuses for crime. But, we would be hopelessly naive to believe that we can solve our crime problem unless we act to alleviate those conditions.
No one denies that crime is a serious problem in America today. But, rather than protecting us and keeping our streets safe, current government policies are the primary reason the crime problem is growing worse.
The government is failing to protect us from violent criminals, while squandering the taxpayers' money on drug prohibition and similar activities. The government pushes victims aside in the criminal justice system, and threatens to create new victims by disarming law-abiding Americans. Meanwhile government welfare, education, tax and regulatory policies create a breeding ground for new criminals.
It is a recipe for disaster.
And that is why I feel a vote for Obama is a vote for increasing violence.
In closing - this weekend the Philadelphia Hero Thrill Show will be on Saturday, September 22 from 12-5 pm. Tickets are $10 per person or $25 for more than 2 people.
The money they make goes to the children of fallen police officers, like the incredible K9 Officer Brad Fox, who survived two tours in Iraq but was slain by a career criminal.
Visit http://www.herothrillshow.org/ for more information.
Jim Latshaw
8:45 am on Sunday, September 23, 2012
I couldn't agree more Ms. Freed. As a retired police officer from Montana i've seen the same thing out west.
Pamela
8:19 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Are you seriously blaming Obama for poor gun law enforcement? It has nothing to do with Democrats. It has to do with the NRA and its mass amount of $$$$ to politicans. Why are you allowed to walk into a gun store, buy a gun and walk out with it the same day? Why are you allowed to buy multiple guns a month? Why are you allowed to buy semi, and assualt rifles? WHY because the NRA protects every citizens right to carry arms. Note NRA is mostly Republicans. You are going to blame Obama for the school system? It is run by school boards. You are going to blame Obama for every States judicial system? Blame the judges. Get real,America is not a dictatorship, nor is it run by the military. Place the blame where it belongs.
Stephen Eickhoff
11:26 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
"Why are you allowed to walk into a gun store, buy a gun and walk out with it the same day?"
Why not?
"Why are you allowed to buy multiple guns a month?"
Why not?
"Why are you allowed to buy semi, and assualt rifles?"
Semiautomatic weapons fire one round per trigger pull and do not need to be recocked after each shot. "Assault" rifles are rifles capable of full-automatic or burst operation; that is, they fire more than one shot per trigger pull. They have not been manufactured for civilian use in the USA since 1986. Civilians may only own an assault rifle made after 1986 if they have a firearm manufacturer's license. So again I ask, "Why not?"
Your questions are odd. You acknowledge that we all have the right to "carry arms", yet you oppose the NRA's lobbying. What part of the NRA's lobbying is encouraging crime? The Brady Campaign also lobbies politicians.
Stephen Eickhoff
11:29 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Of course, there's no need to blame Obama for any perceived lack of law enforcement. It's quite enough to point out that he appointed an attorney general who committed negligent homicide in the death of a border patrol agent, and is likely liable for the deaths of many more Mexican citizens at the hands of Mexican drug lords. It's indicative of the incompetent, corrupt Mexican leadership that they are not outraged with "Fast and Furious" and demanding justice.
Laura Freed
11:39 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Anyone can buy a car. There is NO background check when it comes to buying a car. And yet, cars kill more people than guns. Also, with Obama's desecration of the American Flag, creating his own "version" of our flag...seems to me a very dictatorial move...
Had you read the article, Pamela, you'd understand I'm blaming Obama for a poor economy, for placing more and more people on welfare. Poverty breeds violence. Obama has only been successful at raping our economy and placing more people on the government dole (thus chaining them to the government plantation). therefore, a vote for Obama, is a vote for poverty. A vote for poverty is a vote for more violence. Capish?
TP
12:13 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Stephen/Laura...Pamela is the resident Dem/Lefty/Lib political Republican bashing commenter...she is too busy drinking the Dear Leader Kool Aid to see that the country is going down the toilet!
Nadia
12:22 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
the radical republicans support, and are supported, by the NRA...period.
Nadia
12:28 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Laura has no knowledge of current events...she is a brain washed teabagger...what pity.
Tim Lewis
9:19 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Pamela, you read this article and that was your take-away? Really? Crime is due to poor gun law enforcement? What world do you live in?
Laura - good article, but I can't agree with point 2. Drugs are not the same as alcohol, and drug use is not always a victimless crime.
Laura Freed
9:56 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Thanks Tim. I understand the reluctance surrounding point 2. I am sympathetic/understanding of most arguments regarding the issue of legalizing drugs.
Joe
12:30 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
I already regret bringing this up but where do you get your facts from? Your statement (that you made twice) of "Every cop killed in the last 10 years has been killed by a career criminal" needs a little more facts. Do you mean EVERY cop in the United States in the past 10 years or just every cop in the Philadelphia area?
I agree that everyone has the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and should be able to purchase within reason a number of defense weapons. You do not need to create a personal arsenal for yourself unless your a paranoid nut job. Again that’s just my opinion.
I know this has been brought up many times before and I’m sure most republicans will rebuff this but it does take more then 4 years to fix 8 years of mishaps and poor judgments. Clinton was in office for 8 years, the first four years he spent fixing the first president Bush's leftovers. When Clinton left office did we not have a surplus and the economy was flourishing? Then comes along another republican (Bush) who then spends the next 8 years destroying what the past had built up. The only reason Bush was re-elected was because we were at war at the time. He knew the best way to get re-elected was if the country was at war.
Bottom line let him work it out. It’s not a sprint it’s a marathon.
Now, commence your democratic bashing.
Stephen Eickhoff
1:16 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You assume that every accomplishment under a Democratic president is due to the actions of that president, while every shortcoming of a Republican president is due to the actions of that president. Congress was involved in both outcomes because we, fortunately, have a democratic republic and not a dictatorship with both legislative and executive powers combined in one individual.
As for building a "personal arsenal", everyone has his own definition of what that means, so the only truly free approach is to not arbitrarily set a maximum number of arms... after all, you can only shoot one at a time unless you're a movie action hero. If I have a .22 rifle, a 12ga shotgun, and a 9mm pistol, is that an arsenal? They all serve different purposes. Meanwhile, Rosie O'Donnell smugly declared that anything other than muzzle-loaded muskets are not protected by the Constitution. We can't allow restrictions on our freedoms based on the lowest common denominator of the ignoramus.
OMG
1:47 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Wow reading this article is funny to me. I don't know where these statistics came from but really? It's now Obama's fault for picking up what George Bush had us in before Obama was elected. See, people like you would act like you forgot where we were 4 years ago. Its these ignorant police. Some of them are just as criminal as the person committing the crimes. They are no better they just have the upper hand in being believed. What do you consider a career criminal? Is a person who was charged for the crimes but never convicted a career criminal? Is a person who has done his jail time, maxed out and home for 2 years straight off parole and no trouble a career criminal because people do change. All it takes is for some people to have the experience 1 time to make a change so Laura you are a joke and we know who you are voting for.
TP
3:52 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Lefty Libs will be blaming Bush on their death beds...It was Bush that put me here..Obama had 2 years where he controlled the House AND Senate...and he still did nothing but saddle us with a health care bill that the majority of Americans did not want...hence Mama Pelosi was shown the door as will the dear leader come November!
Anna Johnson
4:51 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Who is tired of rhetoric, conjecture and polarizing media? This article is discouragingly myopic! So, the root cause of all our nation’s problems stem from liberal policies? How wonderfully simple! I find the resolutions listed for these ills just as naive. Here are my comments for the first two:
1. “Making a victim whole through restitution? Really? Are you talking about financial restitution after you’ve already highlighted a correlation between poverty and crime? Perhaps you were referring to physical labor, which has merit but since you didn’t elaborate your point was unclear.
Anna Johnson
4:52 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
2. Ending drug prohibition, just like Amsterdam, right? Let’s pretend this becomes a reality and the drug cartels magically disappear (or become legitimate businesses, scary!). The government makes a mint on tax revenue and the street pharmacist turned entrepreneur makes it into Forbes magazine top10 richest Americans. One problem, you still need MONEY to buy drugs. And you need to have a source for said MONEY, which usually requires staying employed. Not sure about anyone else, for my career, showing up to work impaired, not so good.. Let’s be honest, how many productive and successful drug addicts do you know? Movie stars don’t count, only people you actually know.. Just out of curiosity, what scenario were you thinking of that included people not having to steal or rob for money to buy drugs? Again, since you didn’t elaborate on which drugs, I’m assuming everything is fair game. My “impaired working” scenario refers to the heavy duty, heinous pharmacokinetic properties, mind chemistry changing drugs. The ones were addiction is immanent after a few introductions into the body. Remind me, why is legalization a good idea?
Anna Johnson
4:56 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Oh right, so we can further exacerbate the condition of the existing permanent underclass by encouraging and advocating drug use, (AMERICA WANTS YOU TO BUY DRUGS! You know, Rosy the Riveter needs a little extra boost !) while, simultaneously, our country taxes billions perhaps trillions of dollars of blood money, amounts freely disclosed by ex-cons which they’ve accumulated violently over the decades. Talk about moral fortitude!
When did we loose sight of what made us great! And for the right winged Christians, when did we stop being our brothers’ keeper. Is it when the brother doesn’t look or sound like you? Well, that convenient..
I admittedly have a very romantic view of America, which probably comes from spending the majority of my childhood overseas. I yearned for Malls, MTV anything that reminded me of home. I appreciate my rights, but also feel a civic duty to improving my little piece of Americana. What’s wrong wit that?
I'm a daughter of a career soldier, wife of a LEO and very proud American (with some liberal tendencies…don’t hold that against me.. )
Anna Johnson
Stephen Eickhoff
5:32 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
"When did we loose sight of what made us great! And for the right winged Christians, when did we stop being our brothers’ keeper. Is it when the brother doesn’t look or sound like you? Well, that convenient.. " Are you calling Laura a bigot? Based on what?
henry W. heuer
5:38 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Hi Stephen Eickhoff
"Why are you allowed to buy multiple guns a month? Why not? As the debacle of Fast and furious shows, people (often poor and on welfare) are given tens of thousands by the drug cartels to go in and by dozens of weapons. They sign an agreement that these are for their own personal use but, hey, wadda ya know, they "change their minds" and "sell" those guns back to a representative of the cartel. Totally legal for him to “change his mind” too. That's why you don't let people buy thousands of dollars of guns at one shot.
Why are you allowed to buy semi, and assault rifles?" Why not? The point here is what's the limit? What is truly required for personal protection? As best I can tell, the NRA and adamant supporters of gun rights would have you believe that personal nuclear weapons are just fine. No? Then you sir, are a liberal and like most liberals, just looking for a logical rational limit.
Personal stance? No problems with hunting rifles, and shot guns. A handgun, I’m unconvinced that it’s safer. Assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, artillery…. ehh, not so much.
Oh, Liberal gun control groups have given Obama a failing grade on gun control. He hasn’t acted to constrain gun use at all.
Stephen Eickhoff
6:02 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Henry, I'm eager to see your citation of NRA's stance on personal nuclear weapons.
As for me being a liberal, yes, I am a classical liberal. "Liberal" was co-opted by FDR and other progressives because the word "progressive" had become tainted-- and rightly so. Being "liberal" means advocating more personal freedoms, not fewer. I'm definitely not progressive, as I do not support the inevitable growth of the state to control all parts of life.
We already have laws against straw purchases. A single individual who purchases dozens of weapons in order to resell them to a criminal is quite stupid and won't go undetected.
Anna Johnson
6:07 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Stephen,
As I'm not one to mince words, if were calling Ms. Freed a bigot , I would have done so directly. My comment was more of a generic question. Since her article is speckled with data and stats drawing corollaries between race, poverty and crime, I asked a simple question.. Why would anyone, particularly the religious right (complements of the conservative right) purposely accept or suggest resolutions that would sacrifice a specific portion of our society? In a Presidential race where President Obama’s birth certificate is till up for debate, I believe I have a legitimate question. Do you have a legitimate answer?
Best Regards,
AJ
Rick Jones
10:03 am on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
An argument can be made that the groups which have the power to control the terms of the debate largely control the public's perception of reality, insomuch as their 'solution' to the drug problem is perceived to be the correct one.
Politicians and ruling governments have a decided advantage over all other groups in the drug legalization debate. Despite the overwhelmingly positive outcome of the Swiss heroin trials, the U.S. Nat'l Institute on Drug Abuse suppressed results of this trial at two major conferences it organized on heroin use.
Prescribing heroin to heroin addicts -- went so against the prevailing conception of reality that both the media and policy makers refused to consider it. Americans have a tendency to believe only what we are told to believe.
40 years, ONE TRILLION $, countless lives lost and families victimized. The War on Drugs is a dramatic failure and to believe otherwise is obscenely misguided and irresponsible.
There is a plethora of information on the alternatives and the benefits - forgo sheepledom and engage in education.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8255418.stm
Camy Quinn
10:32 am on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Laura - I guess I am one of the "bleeding heart liberals" you mentioned. I'm not sure what that means, but I assume your intention wasn't complimentary. I'm not sure why you would want to start an article insulting people, then expect them to read on, but oh well. Anyway, your article is an interesting point of view with interesting connections between large issues. You seem to have it all figured out. I agree with you on a few points, but I am a bit skeptical about some of the numbers you have supplied. You give lots of stats and mention a number of studies. Can you please supply your sources? I'd like to learn more about welfare statistics and gun/crime statistics (I really don't know too much detail about these topics). I figured I'd start with your sources, determine how biased/unbiased they are, then research other sources from there. Thanks.
Joe
11:34 am on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Its easy to get the numbers, just pull them out of the air like she did.
OMG
2:06 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
How can it be a war on drugs when some of the drugs confiscated are stolen? It just goes on and on. When drug dealing is allowed to help "catch" a so called main source to make a deal for lesser jail time, who calls that shot? They are no better than the criminals they catch.
J
3:13 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Why are people pretending to know things on the internet, which is in itself a wealth of information? JUST LOOK IT UP PEOPLE.
Nick
4:06 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
1st of all this is not an "article", it is an opinion piece. It sights no real references, and takes major and unfounded leaps to its conclusion.
Somehow the author has seemed to imply that no crime, poverty, or economic hardship existed before Obama took office in 2008. The author actually states that Obama's economy is responsible for crime.
The right wing has become a pathetic mockery of what it once was. The party of personal responsilbity is now the party of dodging blame and name calling.
I would like to see the author site some references and intelligent discourse. Instead, Ms. Freed indicates a problem and then tells us some current Republican policy is the cure, regardless of the fact that most have already been proven to be failures.
Nick
4:15 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
Following through to Laura's profile reveals she is a proud member of the Tea Party. That should tell us all we need to know.
Stephen Eickhoff
4:16 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
And what is that, Nick?
Nadia
12:25 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Bravo Nick. Laura is a right wing teabagger. Thank God her party has already lost the election.
Stephen Eickhoff
1:41 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
The silence is deafening. Laura's piece is far from perfect, but when your only response is name calling, you are not raising the level of the discourse.
Rombe Smythe
7:22 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Laura sounds like a b-ll buster to me. Lighten up folks...we are all in this life together.