The Left's newest front on the war on you: "survival crime"
Ever heard the term "survival crime"? It's the latest front in the Left's war on law and order.
The Left's new theory of "survival crime" is that stealing, shoplifting, public drug use and other crimes--if committed by people of color, or the homeless, or the poor--shouldn't be prosecuted. And why? Because, say leftists, the perp HAD to break that law "to secure their basic survival." The theory is that certain "vulnerable individuals" have been compelled by social conditions to commit these crimes.
If you buy this crap, the corollary is obvious: that enforcing these laws must therefor be a "violation of their basic human rights."
The idea of “survival crime” has floated around in academic circles for decades. But U.S. taxpayers pay over a Trillion dollars a year for general welfare, including food stamps, free public housing, section-8 rental payments, SSDI, and WIC. Every city in America has a network of churches, food banks, and charities that offer direct assistance.
The problem is, drug addicts deliberately choose to spend every dollar they have on drugs, not on food or rent. Oh, of course they'd like to have drugs AND food and an apartment, but no matter how much Dem pols hand out, it's never enough. Any cash in hand today goes to drugs.
So how serious does a crime need to be to be prosecuted in Dem-ruled cities like San Francisco or Seattle? California Democrats passed Prop 47, ruling that theft of property valued at less than $950 would now be a misdemeanor, meaning that the police are unlikely to pursue even habitual shoplifters and thieves.
Seattle and King County recently released new guidelines calling on police officers to stop arresting individuals for all “homelessness-related crimes,” with the goal of “eliminating racial disproportionality” and ensuring that policies “do not penalize homelessness and poverty.” City and county prosecutors have dropped thousands of misdemeanor cases against “vulnerable populations.”
The predictable result: a rise in petty theft. But hey, it's just property, right?
All this has caused widespread frustration among residents and law enforcement officers. As one veteran Seattle cop put it, “We've basically stopped enforcing the law against the homeless population. Political leaders don’t want it and prosecutors won’t pursue charges. It’s a waste of time.”
In New York City, Dem mayor Bill deBlasio ordered the city to stop arresting people for subway fare evasion, on the grounds that enforcement has a disparate impact on the poor. Unexpectedly, the number of people jumping the turnstiles has risen sharply since the new policy was enacted.
But the greatest damage from refusing to prosecute "minor" crimes isn't the sharp increase in property crime, but the fact that we're slowly creating a parallel justice system: one for average citizens and another for politically-favored identity groups. And rather than disputing this point, leftists argue that we must sacrifice equality under the law to atone for social inequalities. They are effectively arguing that one of our nation's bedrock principles--of “the law applying equally to all”--is simply a mechanism of state oppression against the homeless, the poor, and people of color—a radical reversal of its original constitutional meaning.
Leftist "activists" have succeeded in getting eager-to-cooperate Democrat mayors to ignore laws the Left doesn't want enforced. But even worse, once Americans have been conditioned to agree with the principle, there's no "natural" limit to how far this principle can be extended--both to more-serious crimes, and to other favored identity groups.
Activists are already urging that "survival-crime protections" should be extended to the LGBTQ community, sex workers, and recipients of public benefits. If you're unclear on how being LGBTQRS entitles one to commit crimes with impunity, you're not alone. But the Left is only too happy to explain it to you.
In a year or two legal proceedings may no longer begin with “What is the crime” but “Is the person charged with this crime a) homeless? or b) a person of color? or c) politically connected?”
H/T City Journal.
The Left's new theory of "survival crime" is that stealing, shoplifting, public drug use and other crimes--if committed by people of color, or the homeless, or the poor--shouldn't be prosecuted. And why? Because, say leftists, the perp HAD to break that law "to secure their basic survival." The theory is that certain "vulnerable individuals" have been compelled by social conditions to commit these crimes.
If you buy this crap, the corollary is obvious: that enforcing these laws must therefor be a "violation of their basic human rights."
The idea of “survival crime” has floated around in academic circles for decades. But U.S. taxpayers pay over a Trillion dollars a year for general welfare, including food stamps, free public housing, section-8 rental payments, SSDI, and WIC. Every city in America has a network of churches, food banks, and charities that offer direct assistance.
The problem is, drug addicts deliberately choose to spend every dollar they have on drugs, not on food or rent. Oh, of course they'd like to have drugs AND food and an apartment, but no matter how much Dem pols hand out, it's never enough. Any cash in hand today goes to drugs.
So how serious does a crime need to be to be prosecuted in Dem-ruled cities like San Francisco or Seattle? California Democrats passed Prop 47, ruling that theft of property valued at less than $950 would now be a misdemeanor, meaning that the police are unlikely to pursue even habitual shoplifters and thieves.
Seattle and King County recently released new guidelines calling on police officers to stop arresting individuals for all “homelessness-related crimes,” with the goal of “eliminating racial disproportionality” and ensuring that policies “do not penalize homelessness and poverty.” City and county prosecutors have dropped thousands of misdemeanor cases against “vulnerable populations.”
The predictable result: a rise in petty theft. But hey, it's just property, right?
All this has caused widespread frustration among residents and law enforcement officers. As one veteran Seattle cop put it, “We've basically stopped enforcing the law against the homeless population. Political leaders don’t want it and prosecutors won’t pursue charges. It’s a waste of time.”
In New York City, Dem mayor Bill deBlasio ordered the city to stop arresting people for subway fare evasion, on the grounds that enforcement has a disparate impact on the poor. Unexpectedly, the number of people jumping the turnstiles has risen sharply since the new policy was enacted.
But the greatest damage from refusing to prosecute "minor" crimes isn't the sharp increase in property crime, but the fact that we're slowly creating a parallel justice system: one for average citizens and another for politically-favored identity groups. And rather than disputing this point, leftists argue that we must sacrifice equality under the law to atone for social inequalities. They are effectively arguing that one of our nation's bedrock principles--of “the law applying equally to all”--is simply a mechanism of state oppression against the homeless, the poor, and people of color—a radical reversal of its original constitutional meaning.
Leftist "activists" have succeeded in getting eager-to-cooperate Democrat mayors to ignore laws the Left doesn't want enforced. But even worse, once Americans have been conditioned to agree with the principle, there's no "natural" limit to how far this principle can be extended--both to more-serious crimes, and to other favored identity groups.
Activists are already urging that "survival-crime protections" should be extended to the LGBTQ community, sex workers, and recipients of public benefits. If you're unclear on how being LGBTQRS entitles one to commit crimes with impunity, you're not alone. But the Left is only too happy to explain it to you.
In a year or two legal proceedings may no longer begin with “What is the crime” but “Is the person charged with this crime a) homeless? or b) a person of color? or c) politically connected?”
H/T City Journal.
posted by SF at
6:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home