There are more Independents than Democrats or Republicans. If we truly cared for the welfare of our fellow citizens, we would admit that we have little choice but to sit at the same table and understand divergent points of view. Not doing this ensures a continuing crime problem that perpetuates the immense distress of fellow Americans.
Compromise is necessary considering that most Americans are in the middle politically. Without Independents, without consensus, there is no progress.
Reader comments propelled this article. It’s about the ideological debate over crime and violence. It’s a tough topic. It’s the elephant in the room. It needs to be discussed.
I write articles examining crime and readers respond that it’s “those progressives” or “those conservatives” who are at the heart and soul of our crime problems. Their actual comments are a “bit” harsher than presented. I was recently called a Nazi on a Reddit page for presenting USDOJ statistics.
The crime discussion is not as ideologically straightforward as some make it. I am aware of criminologists (most are liberal per Sage) who have strongly pushed back against interpretations of research that support a less-than-liberal narrative. I’m aware of conservatives who tell others that there have to be alternatives to incarceration because limited prison space needs to be reserved for repeat violent offenders.
Per a previous article, progressives are now feeling the heat of reform as concerns about crime escalate; their point of view seems somewhat archaic in terms of intensifying media coverage of crime problems. Per Gallup, fear of crime is now at record levels.
Less Government?
Conservatives traditionally want less government, a debate that has raged since Thomas Jefferson’s observation, “That government is best which governs least.” Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Suspicion of government is as American as apple pie.
That can mean a wariness of government employees (the police-tax collectors) and overly intrusive modalities or laws that govern individual behavior (gun ownership-marijuana use-pornography).
Can people on ideologically opposing sides of the crime issue understand different points of view? More Americans are Independents, thus compromise seems advisable, or nothing changes. Neither side can win an argument without the support of independents. Among the public overall, 38% describe themselves as independents, while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans, according to Pew Research Center surveys.
Most of what’s below is an overview of progressive and conservative thought on crime mostly powered by reader comments.
Harvard Study On Police Shootings-Are Honest Conversations Possible?
Per Campus Reform, a Harvard University professor recently detailed the extreme backlash he allegedly faced for releasing findings that contradict popular left-wing narratives on policing.
Professor Roland Fryer, an economics professor at the Cambridge, Massachusetts Ivy League institution, recently had a conversation with Bari Weiss of The Free Press during which he discussed the violent reaction to a study he published in 2016.
Fryer stated that “all hell broke loose” immediately after he shared his findings.
Fryer claimed that the findings showed that there was “some” bias in the use of non-lethal force. Specifically, his study found that, “ On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police.”
However, Fryer acknowledged during the discussion that there was not “any racial bias in police shootings.”
During the interview with Weiss, Fryer also recounted that he had colleagues “take [him] to the side” and say to him, “Don’t publish this. You’ll ruin your career.”
After publishing the study, Fryer recalled that he was forced to live “under police protection for about 30 or 40 days,” including while going to the grocery store, due to the violent threats he says were made against him. “It was crazy,” he said. “It was really, truly, crazy.”
Are We Really That Crazy?
We seem to be. Most news on crime comes from progressive organizations funded by liberal foundations. Most media articles on crime (until lately) convey a left-of-center point of view. That tilt seems to be changing as stories on violence grow more graphic and concerning.
A dominant majority of journalists identify as liberals/Democrats per the National Library on Medicine, part of the NIH structure. It’s not a cheap shot to observe that, per polls, the media ranks near the bottom of the list of institutions Americans trust. I’m guessing that perceived bias regarding crime is a partial reason.
I offered an article stating that violent crime rose by 44 percent per the latest (2022) National Crime Victimization Survey from the US Department of Justice. A 44 percent increase in violence would be the largest ever recorded.
The response from some social media sites was overwhelming claiming that I was purposefully lying to advance a conservative agenda, and that was one of the more polite exchanges.
The mainstream media refused to cover the 44 percent increase from what many describe as, unquestionably, the most reliable source of crime statistics for the nation because only a small fraction of crime is reported to law enforcement via the FBI. However preliminary statistics from the FBI showing decreases for 2023 (except for auto theft) received widespread news coverage.
Why are we so willing to embrace one USDOJ set of crime statistics and ignore the other?
Are Progressive The Problem?
Many progressives will blast any sense that the crime problem is a serious social and economic issue. They will insist that we have never lived in safer times based on decades of declining crime (true) which ended in 2015 per National Crime Victimization Survey data with a 28 percent increase over three years.
There are articles belittling people (based on data from Gallup) that fear of crime is at record highs. They suggest that people afraid of crime are clueless. They insist that current crime is lower than before the pandemic.
They proclaim that crime and violence are declining when the US Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey states that violence increased by 44 percent for the last full-year report per criminologist Jeff Asher and The Marshall Project with enormous increases for groups. Violence data from the FBI for 2022 (full-year report) was essentially flat with an increase in homicides. Preliminary violence numbers from the FBI for 2023 show substantial decreases but for Americans living in metro areas, most reductions were small.
The Major Cities Chiefs Association states that homicides increased by 50 percent and aggravated assaults increased by 36 percent from 2019-2022 for the cities measured. The same organization will tell you that there are cities where violence is increasing or cities where categories of crime are growing per their full-year report for 2023.
Cybercrimes are growing exponentially (almost doubling) and affect far more Americans than street crimes.
Progressives gave us the “defund the police” movement and now we have a crisis per US Department of Justice agencies of woefully understaffed police departments as thousands of officers have left the job. Since when is the judgment of over a million people based on the actions of a few involved in illegal or unethical actions justified?
They wanted cops as guardians, not warriors until school and mass shootings took over the headlines coupled with exhaustive reports that police officers lack the training and equipment to quickly take down shooters.
They want police K-9 teams disbanded when the mere appearance of K-9s convinces the vast majority of suspects to peacefully submit.
They insist that cops are guilty of brutal applications of force when replicated data from the US Department of Justice state that use “or” threat of force involves two percent of police-citizen encounters. Polling data indicate widespread approval of law enforcement regardless of demographics.
They insist that police shootings disportionly involve Black citizens when data from Harvard (above) says the opposite. They will state that police traffic stops are discriminately applied to African Americans when USDOJ data says that Whites and Blacks have an equal chance of being stopped.
They send strong messages through progressive prosecutors that a multitude of crimes will not be prosecuted thus giving a green light to offenders to commit endless thousands of lower-level crimes causing the closure of businesses and the loss of jobs.
In Oregon, they demanded that hard drug possession be decriminalized resulting in massive overdoses, something that the state is now reversing.
They insist that programs for offenders significantly reduce recidivism when the best available evidence suggests that they don’t.
Progressives will endlessly promote the “school-to-prison pipeline” without acknowledging the enormous abuse of children by parents and communities as the real cause of criminality. They seem to give a pass for child abuse.
The US Department of Justice and many state correction systems now call criminal offenders “clients.” Is the person who murdered your family member a “client”? Is that the message citizens endorse?
Are Progressives Delusional?
Are progressives delusional? No. They want what we all want, the fair and equal treatment of every US citizen, something that all justice employees agree to when they swear to uphold their state and federal constitutions. They point out that incarceration has real financial and emotional consequences for families and communities. They correctly insist that juveniles need to be treated differently (haven’t we all done something incredibly stupid when we were young?).
They want an equitable, fair, and compassionate justice system. They correctly point out our mistakes. Not every police officer acts appropriately. Not every correctional system offers sufficient medical treatment. For many states, public defense is a joke. They believe alternatives to law enforcement (i.e., violence interrupters) should be tried.
We within the justice system have enormous power to dramatically change the lives of the people we interact with and being held accountable is something we agreed to when we took our jobs.
So progressives have a legitimate role to play by challenging the justice system and seeking improvements.
Are Conservatives Any Better?
In many cases, yes. I could express a liberal point of view (i.e., the legalization of marijuana, giving communities a say in law enforcement policies) and conservatives may harshly disagree with me but it won’t be like progressive social media sites who accuse me of being in bed with Satan. I’ve been banned from several progressive sites for offering US Department of Justice data. I’ve never been banned from conservative sites.
But conservatives can be as questionable as progressives. I was a guest on a national television show when one participant stated that all society had to do was unleash the police and the crime problem would be over in days. He never mentioned an adherence to Constitutional provisions. James Madison (the father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) would turn over in his grave. Ronald Reagan would join him.
We can’t lock up everyone. The space doesn’t exist. It would shut down the courts, corrections, and government in a month.
Whether you like it or not, those arrested are innocent until proven guilty thus the bail discussion is legitimate (but there should be provisions for dangerousness or repeat criminals).
Our juvenile justice system is legally and historically predicated on the best interest of the child (but if you commit heinous crimes, you should be prosecuted as an adult). Prison medical systems are legally bound to provide a community standard of care, and it’s ungodly expensive.
Not all cops are without sin. I support the police (I used to be a cop) as much as anyone but I don’t give buttholes a free pass. We need to acknowledge that there is animosity between groups and cops while understanding that mistrust involves most institutions, not just the police.
We need to support a Constitutional government of ideals, dignity, and freedom from oppression. Any student of American history understands that our forefathers greatly feared an overreaching government. The justice system can (and has) overreached.
So Is A Respectful Conversation About Crime And The Justice System Possible?
At the moment, the answer seems to be no. Progressives insist they want an evidence-based approach to crime when most of the data doesn’t support their views. I talk to reporters about the National Crime Victimization Survey’s finding that we just experienced the largest yearly increase in violence in the nation’s history yet they ignore the data in favor of reported crime data offered by the FBI (which has endless problems as to accuracy-the vast majority of crime is not reported to law enforcement).
For progressives, admitting that we have a crime problem (real or otherwise) means that conservatives will control the narrative and we will return to the bad old days of massive arrests and incarcerations. It doesn’t matter what crime data says or the problems associated with reported crime data, they will endlessly attack anyone not carrying their water.
Conservatives will insist that current full-year crime figures (2022) indicate increases for most categories (true) but reported crimes in 2023 from the FBI suggest decreases. Just understand that it’s preliminary data and until the final report comes in at the end of the year, all bets are off, but decreases are likely. The decreases in metro areas were much smaller with increases in two categories.
So to progressives, some of us who write about crime are often biased buttholes who will say and do anything to use crime as a political weapon.
Conservatives think that most progressives, many criminologists, and the bulk of reporters are clueless upper-class people who live in protected or safe communities immune from the ravages of crime. To many of us who spent decades in the justice system, progressives (and that includes some criminologists) probably have never spent a day in their lives walking beats or a prison tier or dealing with victims of crime.
Some suggest that the major philosophical difference is either the protection of criminals from current and historic discrimination versus those of us who believe that crime victims (and the rest of us) deserve justice through accountability. I attended a briefing in Washington, D.C. where leadership from the ACLU insisted that crime victims had no right to influence crime policy.
Conclusions
So no, it seems that unbiased and factual conversations about crime between conservatives and progressives are not in the cards. We mistrust each other’s motives.
But if we truly cared for the welfare of our fellow citizens, we would admit that we have little choice but to sit at the same table and understand divergent points of view. Disparate thoughts need to be heard and respected.
Compromise is necessary considering that many Americans are in the middle politically. Without independents, there is no progress.
Not doing this ensures a continuing crime problem that perpetuates the immense distress of fellow Americans. Cancer and other diseases don’t carry the stigma of political ideology because people are massively suffering.
Why doesn’t this thought apply to fellow citizens suffering from crime?
Comments