Unfortunately, the way that America has typically gotten “tougher on crime” has involved increasing sentence lengths rather than murder clearance rates, and making our prisons violent torture dungeons with rotten food rather than safe, well-provisioned rehabilitative centers.
We absolutely need to make our policing system much more reliable — people who commit violent crimes and theft should know the probability they’ll be caught is extremely high rather than minuscule.
But in our tack back to common sense after the excesses of the defund movement, we can’t forget the core humanitarian impulses behind that reformist energy. We need to make our police more professional and trustworthy, and our prisons much, much more humane, or our pursuit of justice will just become more violence.
The current on the ground issues in policing efficacy are expanding tech use that helps solve crime. One one hand you have private companies and police unions advocating for flock cameras, drones, and other solutions. On the other hand you have civil rights advocates advocating for… not using tech to solve crimes. There are many real world stories demonstrating the efficacy of this tech, SF used drones to ID car window smashing rings and reduced rates of that crime by 95% in the city. They also used drones to crack down on the dirt bike takeovers. Flock cameras across the US contribute significantly to murder clearance because it limits the pool of suspects to ~1-15 IDed cars, that combined with DNA improves clearance by 50%.
I think many people aren't really understanding just how much more criminals harm the marginalized and weak vs the powerful. I'm wondering if people have a misconception that for example car thieves are stealing wealthy people's luxury cars when in reality, they're robbing poor people of their cars and depriving them of their ability to go to work or to doctor's appointments etc. The data you've shown here should really help open people's eyes to how it is. Black Americans are like 14% of the population yet around 50% of murder victims.
Given how much more Black Americans are victimized by criminals than white Americans, I think we should just straight up equate soft on crime policies with anti-Black racism. Tell people that are soft on crime that the only reason they're like that is because criminals harm Black people far more than white people. I'm half serious. If criminals were terrorizing and victimizing wealthy white Americans at the same rate they are poor Black Americans most of these "progressives" would be singing a different tune.
Wait, wait, so your solution to getting liberals to be tougher on crime is to tell them they're racist? Are accusations of racism just a handy tool to use to bludgeon people into submission?
In terms of the effects, tolerating crime and public disorder is racist. The harm falls much more heavily on ethnic minorities, the poor, women, the disabled, etc. I think many who say we should tolerate public disorder and repeat offenders being freed would not think the same way if their own demographic made up such a disproportionate portion of the victims. It's not just a "tool to bludgeon people". It's getting to them think about how their stance corresponds to the values they claim to hold.
I don't want to go too far out over my skis on this, as it's not my area of expertise. I'm just a center right, lesbian mom in a suburb. But, it seems like the racist card has been overplayed. How about you just acknowledge that one of the actual, main roles of government - throughout time - is public safety. It is a precursor to commerce, it is a precursor to education, it is a precursor to roads/transportation... Name it, and none of these are successful without being able to leave your home with the assumption that you can and will come back safely. Dems can win if they just start practicing an adherence to first principles. Don't race bait each other, don't make this about gender, just keep it simple (stupid)!
The idea is to use this on people who already use race a lot in their own rhetoric. Someone who doesn't already view things this way won't see it as a valid framing, but the people who are already big on this kind of rhetoric do indeed frame a lot of issues in terms of race.
So yes, if you aren't dealing with someone who already talks about race a lot or doesn't already frame a lot of policy choices in those terms, that framing or angle isn't very fruitful. I agree. But if people are already going to be saying policies need to be race conscious, then pointing out how public disorder and crime affects ethnic minorities can be a way to get them to think about their stance.
People who are willing to tolerate public disorder are doing so because they have compassion for the criminals and have been convinced it is their own morality that tells them they should be soft on crime. Telling them that if it affected their own communities they would think differently is saying that they will hold only to their principles as long as it doesn't cost them personally. Which may be true but is a whole different argument from that they secretly hate black people.
I think people should be harder on crime because they need to realize that ultimately the effect will reach them and people they love. Not because they need to care about marginalized people more. Marginalized people are at the margins of what we care about... that's why they're marginalized.
American rates of violence are indeed really bad, but that has much bigger implications than Kelsey draws here. It is definitely true that we should provide everyone with the kind of safe neighborhood that I currently live in. On the other hand, Baltimore's policies, despite the big improvements, are not providing that to people in poor neighborhoods and neither are other safe cities in the US.
I think taking the moral point of this article seriously requires not just taking a position on the "moderate" side of debates on the left in the US about the range of policies we talk about in our domestic political debates. Instead, it requires really grappling with what it would take to provide the level of safety to everyone in Baltimore that they would experience in Oslo or Tokyo or Seoul. That might mean very different prison conditions, in multiple directions. And different gun laws. Or different rights for criminal defendants (look up Japanese conviction rates). Or other broader changes to the social fabric.
Unfortunately, the way that America has typically gotten “tougher on crime” has involved increasing sentence lengths rather than murder clearance rates, and making our prisons violent torture dungeons with rotten food rather than safe, well-provisioned rehabilitative centers.
We absolutely need to make our policing system much more reliable — people who commit violent crimes and theft should know the probability they’ll be caught is extremely high rather than minuscule.
But in our tack back to common sense after the excesses of the defund movement, we can’t forget the core humanitarian impulses behind that reformist energy. We need to make our police more professional and trustworthy, and our prisons much, much more humane, or our pursuit of justice will just become more violence.
The current on the ground issues in policing efficacy are expanding tech use that helps solve crime. One one hand you have private companies and police unions advocating for flock cameras, drones, and other solutions. On the other hand you have civil rights advocates advocating for… not using tech to solve crimes. There are many real world stories demonstrating the efficacy of this tech, SF used drones to ID car window smashing rings and reduced rates of that crime by 95% in the city. They also used drones to crack down on the dirt bike takeovers. Flock cameras across the US contribute significantly to murder clearance because it limits the pool of suspects to ~1-15 IDed cars, that combined with DNA improves clearance by 50%.
Thanks for this article Kelsey, I pointed this out myself several days ago on another post here.
https://theargument.substack.com/p/why-democrats-cant-win-more-trump?r=5ltvau&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=250939443
I think many people aren't really understanding just how much more criminals harm the marginalized and weak vs the powerful. I'm wondering if people have a misconception that for example car thieves are stealing wealthy people's luxury cars when in reality, they're robbing poor people of their cars and depriving them of their ability to go to work or to doctor's appointments etc. The data you've shown here should really help open people's eyes to how it is. Black Americans are like 14% of the population yet around 50% of murder victims.
Given how much more Black Americans are victimized by criminals than white Americans, I think we should just straight up equate soft on crime policies with anti-Black racism. Tell people that are soft on crime that the only reason they're like that is because criminals harm Black people far more than white people. I'm half serious. If criminals were terrorizing and victimizing wealthy white Americans at the same rate they are poor Black Americans most of these "progressives" would be singing a different tune.
Wait, wait, so your solution to getting liberals to be tougher on crime is to tell them they're racist? Are accusations of racism just a handy tool to use to bludgeon people into submission?
In terms of the effects, tolerating crime and public disorder is racist. The harm falls much more heavily on ethnic minorities, the poor, women, the disabled, etc. I think many who say we should tolerate public disorder and repeat offenders being freed would not think the same way if their own demographic made up such a disproportionate portion of the victims. It's not just a "tool to bludgeon people". It's getting to them think about how their stance corresponds to the values they claim to hold.
I don't want to go too far out over my skis on this, as it's not my area of expertise. I'm just a center right, lesbian mom in a suburb. But, it seems like the racist card has been overplayed. How about you just acknowledge that one of the actual, main roles of government - throughout time - is public safety. It is a precursor to commerce, it is a precursor to education, it is a precursor to roads/transportation... Name it, and none of these are successful without being able to leave your home with the assumption that you can and will come back safely. Dems can win if they just start practicing an adherence to first principles. Don't race bait each other, don't make this about gender, just keep it simple (stupid)!
The idea is to use this on people who already use race a lot in their own rhetoric. Someone who doesn't already view things this way won't see it as a valid framing, but the people who are already big on this kind of rhetoric do indeed frame a lot of issues in terms of race.
So yes, if you aren't dealing with someone who already talks about race a lot or doesn't already frame a lot of policy choices in those terms, that framing or angle isn't very fruitful. I agree. But if people are already going to be saying policies need to be race conscious, then pointing out how public disorder and crime affects ethnic minorities can be a way to get them to think about their stance.
People who are willing to tolerate public disorder are doing so because they have compassion for the criminals and have been convinced it is their own morality that tells them they should be soft on crime. Telling them that if it affected their own communities they would think differently is saying that they will hold only to their principles as long as it doesn't cost them personally. Which may be true but is a whole different argument from that they secretly hate black people.
I think people should be harder on crime because they need to realize that ultimately the effect will reach them and people they love. Not because they need to care about marginalized people more. Marginalized people are at the margins of what we care about... that's why they're marginalized.
American rates of violence are indeed really bad, but that has much bigger implications than Kelsey draws here. It is definitely true that we should provide everyone with the kind of safe neighborhood that I currently live in. On the other hand, Baltimore's policies, despite the big improvements, are not providing that to people in poor neighborhoods and neither are other safe cities in the US.
I think taking the moral point of this article seriously requires not just taking a position on the "moderate" side of debates on the left in the US about the range of policies we talk about in our domestic political debates. Instead, it requires really grappling with what it would take to provide the level of safety to everyone in Baltimore that they would experience in Oslo or Tokyo or Seoul. That might mean very different prison conditions, in multiple directions. And different gun laws. Or different rights for criminal defendants (look up Japanese conviction rates). Or other broader changes to the social fabric.
CAP had a long doc out that looked good to me, and I am hoping more Democrats sign on to this or something similar: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/delivering-accountability-a-plan-to-stop-crime-in-our-communities/
Curious if others have read it and have any concerns.