https://x.com/devorydarkins/status/1960339347787714588?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So Joe Scarborough is interviewing Brandon Johnson on MSNBC (For Dan, who's not so smart about these things, the SOURCE of this information is MSNBC a left leaning network which allegedly engages in real journalism, NOT Twitter) and asks him if having 5000 more cops on the streets of Chicago would help lower crime. Johnson is incapable of answering, despite the question being asked multiple times, and Joe stipulating to Johnson's fanciful notions about billions of dollars in social programs being implemented. Clearly Johnson is more concerned with toeing the liberal line that more law enforcement is bad, than in what is best for the citizens of Chicago.
4 comments:
I wonder what stats are available to prove any of those other ideas made any difference to the crime rate? More cops, enforcing the law, better non-Soros-funded prosecutors, judges and DAs, an armed populace steeped in Judeo-Christian morality...these are far more impactful on bringing down crime than "affordable housing", "social justice warriors" and all the other rank bullshit lefites like Johnson pretend can be.
That's two separate issues in this context.
In the context of the interview, Joe stipulated that Chicago had all of the left wing programs the mayor could conjure up, and the mayor still wouldn't acknowledge that additional cops would also help lower crime.
In the broader context, I think that it's reasonable to look at every option and to pursue those which show solid evidence of reducing crime, as part of a larger effort which might well include increasing cops/arrests/prosecutions/etc.
I think that the fact that Johnson likely has a PPD which consists of armed security/cops makes his position on more cops quite clear.
In another post Dan tried to suggest that decreasing illiteracy and poverty would educe violence/crime, when I pointed out that the cities with the highest crime/violence problems were controlled by the DFL as were the schools which have sub 50% literacy rates, he disappeared. It's almost like there is a strong correlation between things being controlled by the ASPL, and shitty outcomes.
Dan likes to believe that paying for additional education in prisons reduces criminal recidivism. I don't think that's true if one is only considering those who take up the state on continuing education because they have a strong desire to become a productive citizen who doesn't have to worry about more jail time. I suggested taking a bit of their pay from the jobs they learn to do in order to pay off or decrease the taxpayer cost for giving them what most people pay for themselves at great sacrifice. Dan wouldn't go for it insisting I need data to prove something for which I wasn't insisting was a good ROI. Why should we pay for continuing education of felons? Doesn't that increase their debt to society? Why must we pay for that added debt? Dan is just so generous with our money.
So Dan thinks offering classed to cons is a good idea, as if all cons will even bother taking the classes. Of those who will and do not return later to a life of crime, what percentage is that and when added to the general population, which includes those who won't bother, are we really getting a good ROI. In the same way, what's the return on our investment in all these other programs put ahead of increasing the police force? Nothing says "reduced crime" by all criminals in jail.
Dan's a naive idiot who lives in a fantasy world, where sin is always just a "mistake" and criminals are just misunderstood teddy bears who've been oppressed somehow. I fail to see how his fantasy life is particularly relevant as it's fantasies like his that have gotten us into our current predicament.
We know that incarcerating or executing recidivists for life would quickly and decisively lower crime, yet the ASPL make excuses not to take this straightforward step based on data. Are there exceptions, sure, and I believe that there should be avenues for those exceptions to be rehabilitated. But the data speaks for itself.
Are there things that might reduce crime beyond that, probably. But let's try them and only use those which actually work. I'm not completely opposed to giving the minority of convicts the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, redemption and Christianity are kind of linked, but we know who the hard core recidivists are and they need to stay locked up.
Post a Comment