One political issue you don't hear much about anymore is how to deal with crime. It's still a major local issue in all those, you know, crime-ridden American cities, but at the national level it's just not discussed much anymore. Back when the Democrats first instituted their wildly successful policy of running personality-challenged Massachusetts liberals against reality-challenged Republican Bushes, the Willie Horton ads were an infamous attempt to paint Dukakis as a criminal-lovin' pinko. I don't remember any Swiftboat Parolees for Truth this last round, though.
That doesn't mean there aren't some innovative new crimefighting methods sweeping the nation, however. Oakland is about to institute a new program that has apparently found success in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, though you may not have noticed if you actually live in one of those cities. It's...Batman! Nah, I'm just kidding. It's much sillier than that. The police carefully compile a list of the 100 most notorious violent criminals, and then they go out and...talk to them. You know, 
politely ask them not to murder and rape people, stuff like that. Apparently, there's just a Three's Company-level misunderstanding between criminals and society, which can be solved with some discussion, and maybe a drum circle.
Let's concede that this tactic may work as well as the article's experts say it does. Is there something, I dunno, even more effective we could do than talk to these guys, most of whom are on parole, and therefore technically still serving sentences? Like put them back in prison? If the worst 100 offenders have a massively disproportionte effect on the crime rate, how hard would it be to have undercover police follow them around and arrest them the second they litter or double-park? If a ridiculous program finds modest success, how much better might a sane program work? The way we treat violent repeat offenders in this country just drives me up the freakin' wall. Why do we ever let these people out? 100 people can ruin the quality of life for law-abiding citizens across vast swaths of the urban landscape and we tolerate this, even when we know who they are? There's no subject that makes me feel more like some 19th century relic. If this were an 1876 election, I would vote whichever candidate ran on the "Just Hang the Damned Cattle Rustlers" platform.
But we live in such enlightened times that lethal injection is considered "cruel", so we need some other solution. I say, more vigilantism! Let's legally require all citizens to carry guns when in public. Don't bother with firearm training, it takes too long, and somebody could mug you any minute now. If we're all armed to the gills, think of how much safer we'll all be. C'mon, it works in Florida and Texas!
Comments