Crime
Everyone in society is tired of the ongoing crime problem. Statistics from the Justice Department concerning adult criminals are frightening and uncalled for. This is yet one more reason why the American Taxpayers are disgruntled with their government, who is supposed to take care of this problem. In 2006 there are about 7 million adults incarcerated, on probation or on parole. Among these are 2.2 million who are locked away in local, state and federal prisons. Take just a moment and consider how many people that is. What do you think our founding fathers would think about this?
These days there are two competing philosophies concerning crime and the treatment of criminals. Of course, we are all familiar with both. The first is the "soft on crime" philosophy. The second is the "tough on crime" philosophy. These philosophies stand diametrically opposed. At their root are two opposing views of mankind's nature. Consider the following explanation of both views, given in extremes for the sake of understanding the differences more easily.
The "soft on crime" philosophy maintains that the criminal did indeed commit the crime, but he himself is a victim. He is not bad but is basically a good person that has gone astray for one reason or another. He is to be pitied. Maybe he was abused physically, maybe his mother was a drug addict and didn't know how to properly raise him, or maybe he was raised without a father. Whatever the reason, he too is a victim and just needs to be rehabilitated. The punishment for his alleged crime should be meted out accordingly. Too harsh of a penalty may do more harm than good. He needs to know that he is being punished, but not too severely.
The "soft on crime" philosophy maintains that the punishment of the criminal should never include any type of physical beating, removal of body parts or harm in any way, lest his psyche be damaged further. This is unthinkable and barbaric to those who propagate the "soft on crime" philosophy. All criminals must be kept from physical harm, lest it hamper their rehabilitation. The death penalty is out of the question even if the accused criminal murdered, raped or molested little girls. Society needs to concentrate on his good points and his rehabilitation. He is basically a good person gone bad and needs our help.
Above all, the criminal's civil rights must be kept intact according to the "soft on crime" philosophy. The "correctional" facility where he is placed needs to be somewhat accommodating lest he be psychologically damaged even further. If he cooperates with the correctional system he will be allowed to regain his freedom more quickly - having proven that he has been rehabilitated. While undergoing his "rehabilitation" he should be able to participate in sporting events, body building, hobbies and have full access to a library, computer and pornography if he so desires.
According to the "soft on crime" philosophy, the criminal must have good healthcare and be well fed. He must be allowed to keep clean and live an active social life with the other criminals. A better environment than the one he came from will speed his "recovery". The taxpayers should be willing to pay for his entire "rehabilitation", no matter what the cost, since it is the fault of society that he has committed his crime. The "soft on crime" philosophy has been heavily propagated by the civil rights organizations over the last 40 years.
The other philosophy that we label as "tough on crime" takes the opposite approach. This philosophy maintains that a criminal not only committed the crime but now needs to pay dearly for it. The understanding that the "tough on crime" propagator has is that men only get the message when they are severely penalized. Strong deterrents to crime will force men to act right in society, making society safer for women and children. The stronger the penalty, the less likely men are to commit crimes. Overwhelming penalties for criminal behavior are best. This would include physical beatings, castration for sex crimes, and the death penalty.
The extreme "tough on crime" advocate would look at the lack of crime in the Muslim nations and say, "You see, if we just cut off their hand when they stole something like the Muslims do we wouldn't have so much theft". Or, "If we just castrated them when they rape a little girl we wouldn't have so many perverts running loose." The "tough on crime" advocate wants severe justice right now. The endless opportunities for the criminal to get away with his crime increases with time as slick lawyers get involved and begin to work the system in favor of the criminal. To the "tough on crime" advocate this is the real injustice.
The "tough on crime" advocate has no time for attempting "rehabilitation". He also doesn't care whether the "correctional" facility is a multi-million dollar state of the art complex or a hole in the ground. He scoffs at giving the criminals pornography or television. Beans and rice can keep a man alive so why worry about hiring people with tax money to make sure the criminals get a balanced diet? That's the "tough on crime" advocate's attitude. And he laughs when anyone brings up the civil rights of the criminal. To him all rights have been set aside for the criminal. He lost them all when he decided to "rape that little girl". As a matter of fact he's too busy looking for a rope to hang the dirty pervert to worry about his civil rights.
To the "tough on crime" individual the death penalty is a godsend. Implementing it will save billions of tax dollars. The "tough on crime" advocate keeps in mind that it costs some 20 or 30 thousand dollars a year to maintain the criminals "correctional" facility lifestyle and he doesn't like the idea of his tax money being used for this. To him it's a big waste as he doesn't like seeing the criminals molly coddled.
It's quite obvious that these two philosophies stand opposed to each other. The information given above helps one understand the ongoing conflict in American society over which view should hold preeminence. But please realize that I put it all in "black and white" for ease of understanding. In the real world there is a lot more "gray". Like many social issues, this one is a continual fight between the two philosophies. There are good hearted patriotic Americans on both sides of this "culture war" issue. So which view should we, as a society lean toward? More importantly, which philosophy works better in the real world? Which philosophy makes for a safer America?
The answer to the questions above can be found if we take a closer look at the history of the two philosophies, their origin and who is behind them. In fact, this is actually a simple matter to understand once you get a little history on them.
The "tough on crime" philosophy obviously came from our founding fathers. [Before the enlightened thinkers of the early 1900's came to an unconventional understanding of the mind and actions of man, there was no "soft on crime" philosophy to speak of.] Our founding fathers made their laws and the penalties for breaking them based on English law - which was based on the "Ten Commandments" and other rules and regulations that they gleaned from the Old and New Testaments. Their whole criminal justice system was designed around "the Scriptures", seeing how they came here from a Christianized Europe. Their thinking was accepted as the norm at the time. But their "tough on crime" policies were quite harsh compared to what we think of as "tough on crime" today. They had little tolerance.
The thinking of the founding fathers was completely different from the thinking of the "progressive intellectuals" of today who propagate the "soft on crime" philosophy. Their emphasis was on the "evil" nature of man and the need to restrain it for the sake of those in society who were weaker (women and children). The intellectuals emphasize the "good" in man rather than the "evil". To the founding fathers the criminals were "guilty" and the victims were "innocent". The "guilty" criminals deserved harsh punishment and the "innocent" victims deserved to see justice served. To the intellectuals the criminals are themselves victims and the guilt is placed on his environment and society. To them justice is being served while the criminal is being rehabilitated.
To our founding fathers justice served swiftly and harshly would not only punish the criminals for their crimes but would serve as a deterrent, lest the offense be repeated by others who might desire to commit crimes. Those criminals who were under age were not spared. The understanding of the day was that an ordered society requires everyone to obey the laws lest there be chaos. Breaking the standards and laws set by society was looked at with much more distain and considered an affront to all citizens who worked hard to maintain a civilized culture. Penalties for crimes committed were meted out accordingly - harshly.
To the "progressive intellectual soft on crime advocate" all of this seems too harsh. Plenty of time should be taken to make double sure that the accused actually did commit the crime. Criminals under age should not receive the same penalty as those of age. Criminals should be shown mercy. The "soft on crime" philosophy was a reaction to what some considered to be a "too tough on crime" philosophy of the day. Doesn't the "soft on crime" philosophy sound much more loving and forgiving? Aren't the people who steadfastly hold to it actually very nice people? Let's be honest. They don't want to see little girls raped by grown men. Nor do they want to see any police shot down in the line of duty. These are nice people who want everybody to have a fair chance in life - including those who have committed crimes. On paper their "soft on crime" philosophy looks very commendable.
If one is fair and honest in evaluating the two philosophies it has to be concluded that there are good points on both sides. To say that one philosophy is complete and utter nonsense and that the other philosophy is perfect is not intellectually honest. At the root of these two philosophies are opposed views of the nature of mankind. In the real world it is indeed evident that some men have the capacity to be rehabilitated, to do good and to accomplish great things. But it is also evident that men are capable of cheating, stealing, lying, hating, adultery, deceiving, hating, raping, child molesting and a host of other things so despicable that we will leave them unmentioned here.
The truth is that the nature of man allows him to make the choice which way to go in life. But it is also true that man is affected by his environment (especially his childhood environment) which affects his ability and/or willingness to stay out of trouble. Many criminals are indeed victims themselves. But obviously that doesn't give them the right to commit crimes and their "victim" status cannot be used as an excuse to commit crimes because society eventually becomes unsafe for the innocent to live in. A prime example of this is what we see has gradually happened in the sub-culture known as "urban black culture", where the good (innocent) black people have to put bars on their windows and doors.
Having said all of that I hope that I have made it clear to the "soft on crime" advocate that the "tough on crime" advocates are not a bunch of Neanderthals looking for somebody to hang. They just desire justice for the innocent. I also hope that I have made it clear to the "tough on crime" advocates that the "soft on crime" advocates are not part of a conspiracy to destroy our nation from within. They just desire that those who haven't had a fair chance in life be shown mercy. A question that comes to mind is, "Which philosophy works best to minimize crime and make a safer America?" Isn't that the goal here? Knowing what I know about the two philosophies the question that I have to ask myself is, "Which side do I want to error on if that's what it comes to - and that is what it comes to?
My philosophy has always been that when in question, look to the founding fathers and try to understand their actions and even their motives. It's easy to see that they chose to error on the side of the innocent. As the president I have to choose which of these philosophies has a history of being better for the "innocent" members of society. The obvious decision would be to error on the side of being "tough on crime" since it is based on the premise that the criminals are "guilty" and the victims are "innocent". Besides that, the "soft on crime" philosophy just hasn't worked very well over the last few decades. The statistics given at the top of this page bear witness.
Though there is no perfect solution to this problem I would have to side with the founding fathers. This would include the death penalty for the most horrific criminals. My personal view is that this is best for the welfare of the rest of society. The deciding factor for me is that I can't be sure who is really being rehabilitated and who is playing the system so that they can get back out into society and commit more crimes. Knowing the heart of man like I do and the choice/ability to be cunning, sly, and deceitful, as president I cannot trust the good of little innocent girls (and boys) to those with a criminal mind. I would be unwilling to take that chance.
Consider this. The "soft on crime" philosophy has been propagated by the "progressive intellectuals" and implemented by civil rights organizations (the most notable being the ACLU which has it's roots in anti-American communism and socialism) by interpreting the laws of our nation in a manner that is considered to be "according to the letter of the law" as opposed to going by "the intent of the law". This is very dangerous for society, and it's wrong. An example of ACLU anti-Americanism is given below.
The following ten questions about ACLU positions were taken directly from the ACLU of Florida (Central chapter) website and have not been edited (including grammatical errors). I did not make them up. Please take the time to read them. Notice how the ACLU uses "the letter of the law" to justify the bizarre stands that they take. Obviously their position on some very important issues will cause many eyebrows to raise. This considered, and also considering the influence that they have in the criminal justice system, this information will make it clear why we are having such problems with lawlessness in our society.
Though they twist what the laws mean, the ACLU has legal justification for what they stand for. This is how the "soft on crime" philosophy has made it's way into the criminal justice system. I don't think it's right or fair - and it definitely hasn't been good for America. While the rest of us go about our business and expect what's right out of the criminal justice system, the ACLU has been coming in through the back door, quietly and slowly twisting and changing American society in a direction that everyday Americans would not approve of. But everyday Americans are too busy to notice the incremental changes.
The very idea that the ACLU organization is being asked these 10 questions should sound an alarm to those who care. The questions themselves reveal what the ACLU promotes. After reading them you should have a better idea of where some of the strange thinking concerning what's good for America is coming from.
TEN TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT ACLU POSITIONS
[www.aclucentralflorida.org/questions.html]
[1] Why do you defend Nazis and the Klan?
The ACLU's client is the Bill of Rights, not any particular person or group. When the government infringes on the basic rights of citizens, the ACLU is there. We do not believe that you can pick and choose when to uphold rights. If a right can be taken away from one person, it can be taken away from anyone. When you deny a right to someone with whom you disagree, you pave the way for that right to be denied to yourself or someone you strongly support. For example, the principle by which the Ku Klux Klan has the right to march is the same one that allows civil rights activists to march against racism. While the ACLU condemns all forms of racism. we defend the right of racists to speak their minds as the only means of preserving your right to speak your mind.
[2] You're all a bunch of liberals, aren't you?
The ACLU is a nonpartisan group. We have defended people all across the political spectrum, from the Moral Majority and Oliver North to John Scopes and communists. The ACLU strongly supports women's right to choose abortion, yet we have also assisted anti-abortion activists when police used excessive force while arresting them. The ACLU has won support from women's groups for our stand on women's rights, but has angered some feminists for our First Amendment stand on pornography.
[3] Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
[4] Why doesn't the ACLU support gun ownership/gun control?
In practice, the ACLU neither advocates nor opposes proposed gun control legislation; we don't get involved. The Second Amendment talks of guns in regard to militias "needing guns to provide security but makes no reference to individual ownership of guns. The ACLU agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation that there is no unrestricted right for individuals to own guns under the federal Constitution. Therefore, the government does have the right to regulate private gun ownership. Our policy on gun control, like all ACLU policies, was set by the Board of Directors, who are a group of ACLU members. the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation that there is no unrestricted right for individuals to own guns under the federal Constitution. Therefore, the government does have the right to regulate private gun ownership. Our policy on gun control, like all ACLU policies, was set by the Board of Directors, who are a group of ACLU members.
[5] Why does the ACLU support the rights of criminals but not victims of crime?
The ACLU supports everybody's rights. Citizens are outraged by crime and understandably want criminals caught and prosecuted. Regardless of our concerns about crime victims, the ACLU believes that the rights to fair treatment and due process must be respected for people accused of crimes. Respecting these rights does not cause crime, nor does it hinder police from pursuing criminals. It should, and does in fact, cause police to avoid sloppy procedures.
[6] Why is the ACLU against God/Christianity/the Bible?
The ACLU strongly supports our country's guarantee that all people have the right to practice their own religion, as well as the right not to practice any religion. The best way to ensure religious freedom for all is to make sure that the government maintains a position of neutrality when it comes to religion. The ACLU strongly supports religious freedom and the separation of church and state so that people may practice their religion -- just not with government funding or sponsorship. This simple principle in no way banishes or weakens religion. It only means that people shouldn't have a particular religion forced on them, even if most other people in a community support that religion.
[7] Why is the ACLU against drug testing of employees?
The ACLU believes that employers have the right to discipline and fire workers who fail to perform on the job. However, the ACLU does oppose indiscriminate drug testing because the process is unfair, unnecessary and violates privacy rights. Further, drug tests do not measure impaired job performance. A positive drug test simply indicates that a person may have taken drugs at some time in the past--not that they are failing to perform properly in their assigned work. And the accuracy of some drug tests is notoriously unreliable.
[8] Why does the ACLU help rapists and child molesters?
Of course, the ACLU supports the prosecution and conviction of rapists and child molesters. They should receive appropriated punishment, especially for repeat offenders. But, like all convicted felons, they are entitled to some basic constitutional protections. In this regard the ACLU opposes sex offender notification and civil commitment laws, which punish offenders long-after they have completed their sentences. If our sentencing laws concerning sex offenders need revision, then that should be explored, but punishing people after they have served their debt to society is unconstitutional and bad public policy.
[9] Why doesn't the ACLU want patients to know whether their doctor or dentist has AIDS?
The ACLU supports increased AIDS treatment programs and education about AIDS. In the case of doctors and dentists'. the ACLU supports rigorous standards for disease control in handling medical equipment. That is what prevents the spread of AIDS. The ACLU opposes forced testing of people for AIDS as unnecessary, wasteful of scarce resources, and of extremely limited public health value. Force testing of doctors and dentists for AIDS will be used to discriminate against FHV-positive doctors and dentists. It feeds public hysteria about the disease without working to halt its spread.
[10] Does the ACLU support campaign finance reform?
Yes, the ACLU supports the idea of providing public financing to assist candidates running for office. The ACLU believes that providing all candidates with adequate funding to advertise on television, mail information, and travel, will create a more equitable political system. However, the ACLU opposes the idea of putting contribution and spending limits on citizens and candidates because doing so would limit free speech rights.
Now how can you expect me, as the president, to be aligned with such thinking? How could I sleep at night if I was willing to twist the intent of the law given by our founding fathers just so that rapists and child molesters could have their way in society? It's obvious that the ACLU has taken justice and common sense out of the equation in an effort to see that anyone can do or say whatever they want, no matter what effect it has on society. Is it any wonder that American society is breaking down? My opinion of the ACLU is that they oppose what is right and fair for American society. They stand for what is lawful to the letter, and do not take into consideration the intent. This method and effect of not using common sense has been terribly damaging to American society.
The dangerous thinking of civil liberty groups who are more concerned about the guilty criminals than they are with the innocent victims has infiltrated our entire criminal justice system. It's the "soft on crime" policies that they propagate that is the reason why there is so much crime today. They would never admit it, because they don't believe it, but they and others who are soft on crime are responsible for the lawlessness that we see all around us today. The understanding that they have of human nature is backwards from reality. Of course the ACLU is the first name to come to mind when considering the root of the problem.
I think that this whole crime issue needs to be addressed publicly so that the taxpayers can take part. If you have read much on this website you have figured out that my administration is one that will bring the will of the people to the forefront. And I think that the American Taxpayers have a lot that they would like to contribute to what's been going on in our nation concerning crime. I also think that those who work in the criminal justice system - like police officers who are so frustrated with the way the system has been twisted - might like a little input. Therefore we will address this issue of crime using the "Meet and Vote" program.
As usual, the meetings will all be televised so that the whole nation can watch. And, as usual, the live audience will be allowed to ask questions and give input so that the topics addressed are made more clear. Those viewing at home will also be allowed their input via the telephone and the internet. Your elected representatives will be allowed to address the people, airing their concerns and ideas. I have a feeling that we will get to the bottom of this and will come up with some solutions that the American Taxpayers want implemented so that the innocent can go about their lives without fear from the guilty criminals running loose.
When we are done talking about it, your elected leaders will come up with viable options for the taxpayers to consider. The options given will be voted on by the people. As usual, the majority will rule. And, as usual, the legislators will enact the will of the people as law. Using the "Meet and Vote" program will allow us to address this societal tragedy without interference by civil rights groups who have more concern for the guilty criminals than they do for the innocent members of society.
[See also "ACLU" and "Death Penalty" for more information. Go to Index 2 and click on your choice. The issue of "Urban Black Culture" is also addressed on this website. See Index 2.]
| INDEX 1 - AGENDA | INDEX 2 - ISSUES |
