Tapate50
Well-known member
Malpractice
Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
I’ve also been quite clear that my solution is *not* to let violent, disturbed individuals roam the streets committing crimes. You consistently set up false dichotomies on the topic of criminal justice that I don’t believe to be justified. The answer to what we should do to prevent these tragedies isn’t what Charlotte has done, but I don’t believe it’s to lock up the crazies in abusive prisons forever either. Where I think the left gets it wrong is refusing to separate systemic injustices from individual accountability, and where I think the right generally gets it wrong is to treat this as an all or nothing sort of deal.
As I’ve said many times, I am categorically not opposed to locking up violent offenders. But the system is bloated and often does not properly take into account the factors that lead to criminality, or the personal liberties of both the accused and convicted. And because we often treat non-violent and “victimless” crime so harshly, we do end up putting people like this murderer into a cycle of recidivism that I think could be stopped sooner with better intervention programs. That doesn’t mean that I want him back on the streets doing murders, but rather that I’d advocate for more robust psychiatric care that is funded properly to keep people under proper care until they can integrate back into society. But none of that excuses violent crime, and I don’t think the Charlotte Mayor’s statements or actions hit the mark in any way.
Again, I say no because we do over-incarcerate as well, and I don’t think the courts should be assuming future guilt when deciding the appropriate sentencing for an offender. I also don’t think some of the reforms being treated as soft on crime are actually soft on crime. Cashless bail is a good one, because it allows the accused to not have their lives specifically ruined over a lack of cash on hand. It’s always treated as this means of letting criminals go, but so is cash bail, and that’s generally the alternative. It just makes it so that poor criminals have the same rights as wealthy criminals.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Absolutely. Votes have consequences I was told...
I’ve been rather vocal that I disagree with that sentiment, even if I do understand it. Trump spent the entire campaign talking about on-shoring and making things more affordable. I don’t actually expect the average voter to be able to deduce that Trump and his team of professional liars are lying when he says those two things, because I’m not sure it’s intuitively obvious that the two goals conflict with each other. My ire isn’t directed at the voters who dared to trust Trump and right-wing media for falsely representing tariffs, it’s with Trump and the right-wing media for doing the lying. Just as people aren’t doctors or scientists, they’re not economists.
But that’s where I go back to personal accountability. I may not blindly blame the Trump voter who voted for Donald Trump despite his tariff claims for what’s happened to the country, but I would absolutely question the choices of small business owners who voted for him and think they’re accountable for the damage done to their business. Likewise, I do not think it’s reasonable to blame voters for looking at a broken justice system and thinking reform would help to solve some of those issues, but I do challenge the individuals who let this specific person back out on the streets despite the danger he clearly posed to the people around him.
The politician in this case said he’d reverse Joe Biden’s inflation on day 1 and bring down prices by doing something not currently being done. Kamala Harris said she’d reduce Joe Biden’s inflation by doing basically the same things Joe Biden did. I’m not saying the voter cannot or should not be scrutinized, but I wouldn’t say they’re to blame for being lied to.