For reasons that still confuse me to this day, democrats (I count myself as one of them) have been shockingly unable to discern between crimes of violence and crimes of poverty and addiction. This confounding failure, combined with republicans' general desire to lower taxes, has resulted in disastrous legislation in many states, Montana …
For reasons that still confuse me to this day, democrats (I count myself as one of them) have been shockingly unable to discern between crimes of violence and crimes of poverty and addiction. This confounding failure, combined with republicans' general desire to lower taxes, has resulted in disastrous legislation in many states, Montana being one of the worst. "Justice reinvestment," as it is known in Montana, passed with strong bipartisan support. It was a rare marriage of two warring groups who bought into reform for completely different reasons. They were both wrong.
Crimes of addiction and poverty to not necessarily require lengthy incarceration as long as those defendants can receive support, treatment, and accountability in their communities. For republicans, supporting justice reinvestment meant that incarceration costs would be lower with more offenders on probation rather than being incarcerated. Actually paying for the support and accountability a meth addict needs, however, was a bridge too far for many republicans.
For democrats, the idea that social justice could be enacted through justice reinvestment meant that justice would truly be blind - blind to race, wealth, poverty, and gender. Regrettably, justice was also blind to the types of crimes committed by offenders.
I've been prosecuting domestic violence cases for almost a decade, and can now confidently assert that liberal desires to promote social equality are largely to blame for some totally preventable crimes and violent acts. By refusing to assess the nature and facts of a particular offender, particularly with regard to the risk they pose to victims in intimate partner relationships, a significant number of violent offenders are released on low bail and others are paroled early from prison. The results are as real as they are tragic. In May of 2020, one particularly high-risk offender was paroled early from prison after being convicted of stabbing a family member with a knife. The offender was given a second chance (win for liberals) and tax payers were left with a smaller bill (win for conservatives). Within months, the same offender brutally stabbed his girlfriend to death in front of her three minor children. Had policy permitted parole board members the ability to assess the offender's previous crimes and his attitudes towards resolving conflict, he would never have been released from prison. In short - democrats have far too much faith in human beings, and republicans have far too many unrealistic expectations for offenders who likely suffered a variety of trauma during their formative childhood years.
As one reader points out below, mass incarceration of low-risk addicts and thieves is the true waste of taxpayer dollars. Conversely, releasing high-risk domestic abusers from jail under the guise that they can be "treated" and/or "fixed" is an even bigger waste of resources, and the costs to victims and children are real and exponential for decades. Democrats don't like giving up on people, and republicans seem comfortable with the same until it costs taxpayers more money.
Democrats own this problem much more than republicans. Democrats needed republican support to pass this legislation in Montana, but they certainly didn't need it in Washington, Oregon, and other left-leaning states that enacted similar legislation. Perhaps I am a complete homer for the president, but his work on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and his generally moderate positions on crime are a relic from a different time. They are based in reality and a basic understanding that using the criminal justice system as a laboratory for social justice reform comes with deadly risks. Many liberal democrats in the current era lack the same perspective, and they will keep paying for it until they can get a grip on reality.
For reasons that still confuse me to this day, democrats (I count myself as one of them) have been shockingly unable to discern between crimes of violence and crimes of poverty and addiction. This confounding failure, combined with republicans' general desire to lower taxes, has resulted in disastrous legislation in many states, Montana being one of the worst. "Justice reinvestment," as it is known in Montana, passed with strong bipartisan support. It was a rare marriage of two warring groups who bought into reform for completely different reasons. They were both wrong.
Crimes of addiction and poverty to not necessarily require lengthy incarceration as long as those defendants can receive support, treatment, and accountability in their communities. For republicans, supporting justice reinvestment meant that incarceration costs would be lower with more offenders on probation rather than being incarcerated. Actually paying for the support and accountability a meth addict needs, however, was a bridge too far for many republicans.
For democrats, the idea that social justice could be enacted through justice reinvestment meant that justice would truly be blind - blind to race, wealth, poverty, and gender. Regrettably, justice was also blind to the types of crimes committed by offenders.
I've been prosecuting domestic violence cases for almost a decade, and can now confidently assert that liberal desires to promote social equality are largely to blame for some totally preventable crimes and violent acts. By refusing to assess the nature and facts of a particular offender, particularly with regard to the risk they pose to victims in intimate partner relationships, a significant number of violent offenders are released on low bail and others are paroled early from prison. The results are as real as they are tragic. In May of 2020, one particularly high-risk offender was paroled early from prison after being convicted of stabbing a family member with a knife. The offender was given a second chance (win for liberals) and tax payers were left with a smaller bill (win for conservatives). Within months, the same offender brutally stabbed his girlfriend to death in front of her three minor children. Had policy permitted parole board members the ability to assess the offender's previous crimes and his attitudes towards resolving conflict, he would never have been released from prison. In short - democrats have far too much faith in human beings, and republicans have far too many unrealistic expectations for offenders who likely suffered a variety of trauma during their formative childhood years.
As one reader points out below, mass incarceration of low-risk addicts and thieves is the true waste of taxpayer dollars. Conversely, releasing high-risk domestic abusers from jail under the guise that they can be "treated" and/or "fixed" is an even bigger waste of resources, and the costs to victims and children are real and exponential for decades. Democrats don't like giving up on people, and republicans seem comfortable with the same until it costs taxpayers more money.
Democrats own this problem much more than republicans. Democrats needed republican support to pass this legislation in Montana, but they certainly didn't need it in Washington, Oregon, and other left-leaning states that enacted similar legislation. Perhaps I am a complete homer for the president, but his work on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and his generally moderate positions on crime are a relic from a different time. They are based in reality and a basic understanding that using the criminal justice system as a laboratory for social justice reform comes with deadly risks. Many liberal democrats in the current era lack the same perspective, and they will keep paying for it until they can get a grip on reality.