Crime is an indigenous human problem, from the beginning of time.
Throughout history and around the world, criminals have always been dealt with harshly.
When settlers come to America, crime is mostly a community decision, with the outcomes ranging from the scar-colored “a” branding of adulterers to the looting of public squares and the death penalty.
What helped our nation unite was a near-universal set of moral and ethical values, mainly derived from English customary law and diverse religious beliefs.
Over time, public safety has become most important to the prosperity of our society, so crime prevention has become Job #1 at all levels of the US government.
The diversity of opinions about how criminals respond to, especially violent offenders, dates back to Benjamin Franklin, famously advocating for the abolition of the death penalty that became a reality in Pennsylvania in 1794.
Even during the grossly violent of the 1930s, almost all Americans believed they needed to be captured and convicted in court for violating the law, at least jailed.
From the 70s to the 90s, “crime harsh” was a mantra, and in a 1982 article, the Manhattan Institute was able to help prevent more violent crimes if law enforcement attacked relatively small crimes like graffiti and broken windows, and its law and order was the best.
However, by the dawn of the 21st century, a study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates found that among the majority of demographic groups, public perception began to move towards a more “progressive” solution.
A certain thing deep inside our collective mind was that victims of crimes must always be protected and comforted, and that society had to give justice to remain safe.
Within the last decade, the toxic tensions of radical thinking share this brief history of crime as criminals, even violent criminals, have deprived them of unjust society “victims” who have taken away their nuclear families, or ambiguous environmental issues during their upbringing, or lack of financial well-being.
Elite apologists and ivory tower scholars have spread the theory that these cherry blossoms shine, and Democrats and extremists on the left are fully embracing them, and now defending them even to their illogical conclusions.
Refund police were the cry of their recurring rally.
Of course, this is mainly advocated by people living in walled mansions and safest parts of town, or by individuals whose crimes rarely occur.
Even crime and violent crimes are generally on the downward trend, but only a few Americans (15% to 34%) support the idea that police are eliminated.
Nevertheless, most large cities and urban areas find crime unsafe for people living in high crime areas and denies the ability to enjoy the neighborhood.
So, elected Democratic officials like Charlotte, North Carolina, mayor VI Lyles, state on their X account that “we will never emerge from such (sic) homelessness and mental health issues.”
You might think this is just a lonely example, but in fact there are many instances where elected Democratic officials try to explain the crime or turn off criminals into victims.
CNN liberal analyst Van Jones is another example when he was quoted shortly after the transport murder and said, “I don’t know why the man did what he did… this guy is hurt.”
No, this guy is not hurt. He is cruelly dangerous to himself and to society.
Risky people need to simply be imprisoned or institutionalized. period.
Last month, Democrat Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said, “We’ve heard of a lot of hatred directed at our trans community…
For this mayor, crime is about the trans community, not the young life sniffed by crazy individuals who dislike themselves and society.
The latest example of light-empt for anything on the radical Democrat/left left is when MSNBC aired the comments of host Katie Tul shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah, founder of the Conservative Turning Point, which he commented that “division” and “polarization” and that analyst Matthew Dud commented on “words of hatred.”
Really?
Democrats continue to take the wrong position on important issues that are important to voters who vote in midterm elections.
Rather than sympathetic, less conservative Dems, those affected by crime, they are unlikely to vote for candidates who will always find an explanation for why heinous criminal behavior occurred.
Whether it’s a toxic tension of anti-Semitism or helping to defend drugs trying to import dangerous drugs into the US via speedboats in international waters, support members of MS13 or TDA gangs who have entered illegally into our country, killing, raping, raping, daily, victims, or victims, or those in charge of victims, who are a small number of members and obsessive members of their party.
That’s pointless.
And I think this hurts Dem with independent voters.
