Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Every mercy for the criminal, but none for the victim

The folks at Q and O were having a discussion about falling crime rates versus the increasing percentage of Americans behind bars. Naturally, liberals won't want to admit the inverse relationship: put criminals behind bars, and they can't commit crimes. Now that is what I call real deterrence. You deter criminals from committing crimes because they simply can't. As I previously wrote, Jessica Lunsford would be alive today if her murderer had served proper time for his previous offenses. That murderous bastard couldn't have committed his most recent crimes if he'd been properly jailed for his previous offences!

My addition to the comments was about something I noticed at my current (temporary) workplace:
I saw this statistic on someone's desk at the Ford Foundation, while upgrading software on his PC. It's only a short-term project, thank goodness. As Don Luskin said, I'm working in "the belly of the vast left-wing conspiracy."

I forget the precise wording, but the blurb went something like, "There's a 34% reduction in sentencing with public defender teams." I presume that's compared to sentences when only one public defender was representing.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why we would want to reduce sentences for criminals? When criminals are extended this mercy by the court, did they deserve it because they reduced the severity of their crimes by a corresponding percentage? Or will they, in return, reduce the brutality of their future crimes?

Every mercy for the criminal, but none for the victim.
It's probably obvious, but I should clarify anyway. With all the bleeding hearts at the FF, the statistic was talking about sentence reductions as a good thing.

Admittedly I feel like a real sell-out, helping (though it's just IT) a foundation dedicated to all these liberal/socialist causes. On one floor, I saw several posters talking about people's "right" to housing, to education, to health care. To hell with all those "rights" -- just give me the rights to my own life, my own liberty, and my own property. These other "rights" that the FF, UN and Oxfam advocate aren't "rights" at all, because they take away from my right to keep my own property. Why else do you think the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't protect your property rights, except your right to own property "alone as well as in association with others"? Because the non-life, non-liberty, non-property rights for everyone else mean taking your property. All the UN need do is say your property is owned in "association with others" (i.e. socialism), and it's legal for them to take it for "the greater good."

The one I still don't comprehend is "the right to nationality."


Blogger Brad Warbiany said...

Wow. I've never read that before. Now, can someone tell me how Saddam's government wasn't violating more than half of those articles? And yet somehow we're the bad guys for fixing the situation?

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice it.

Saddam violated so many of those, plus multiple UN resolutions passed because of his violations. The UN's solution? Pass more resolutions to condemn him for not living up to those resolutions which condemned him for violating the UN charter.

In the end, we've killed a fraction of the innocent people that Saddam had tortured and executed -- and we did it unintentionally. Saddam is in jail awaiting trial (and a probable death penalty, I think). The Iraqi people have a chance at a better life. Who would really prefer Saddam Hussein remaining in power?

Friday, May 06, 2005 9:00:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home