A Conservative, and Sometimes Even Liberal Contradiction

Targeting poor performance in government is a common sport. These days public safety and issues regarding law enforcement are receiving a lot of attention in Wisconsin, especially in Milwaukee and Madison.

The small government advocates, especially doctrinaire conservatives, often note that government is not the answer to everything. They are correct when it comes to law enforcement and public safety.

Study after study, going back to Kansas City in the 1960's, reveal that only adding more police officers does not lower crime.

Adding more police officers and a solid community backing does lower crime and make law enforcement far more effective.

There is an element of public safety that by the very definition of the task, cannot be provided by government. It is the community and neighborhood support  by leaders who will both stand up to crime and work for neighborhood interventions-- yes, the social services.

Government cannot do everything. Nor should it. And one thing government and the police department cannot be is be the neighborhood leadership.

Comments

[R.J.]

I think there was a study once that found that when criminals are IN jail they're 7 times less likely to commit a crime against the public.

There could be a cop on every block, but if the resources to convict criminals are slashed and judges decide that it makes them 'feel' good to let 'em off easy, then we're paying big bucks for a taxi service.

[Oliver Steinberg]

"Of all the cowards, the most cowardly is the average politician." So said a Minnesota congressman 90 years ago. The issue of public safety is such a perfect illustration of this maxim. The single greatest destabilizing, subversive, crime-breeding factor is nothing else but drug prohibition. Like alcohol prohibition, it fosters vice, violence, corruption, and hypocrisy. As with alcohol prohibition, attempts to enforce it only exacerbate the violence, increase the illicit profits, and encroach on all citizens' civil liberty. Unlike alcohol prohibition, attempts to repeal or reform this policy have never made any progress. Consequently, we have had over 80 years in which the narcotics bureaucrats have been able to throughly institutionalize their police-state scam, compared to the scant 13 years of alcohol prohibition. Yet the historical lesson remains obvious: If you want to put the gangs out of business, take the business out of the gangs. It is certainly a sad irony that politicians kow-tow to the gun lobby, no matter how many crimes are committed with firearms . . . . yet it remains a crime to grow or smoke cannabis.

As for R.J.'s contention that we don't do enough to convict and incarcerate "criminals," I would agree if she were referring to the criminals in high places who wage illegal wars and who loot corporations and steal people's pensions . . . but I doubt that is whom she wants to lock up. No, just keep expanding the American Gulag for petty criminals . . . thus guaranteeing an ever-expanding number of unemployable ex-cons who have all received a graduate education in thuggery, courtesy of the taxpayers. It does, of course, cost more to keep a person in prison than to send him or her to a community college or trade school. If there are even any trade schools left.

Well, logic is wasted in this debate.

[paul]

Ollie- thanks for the comment. It is good to know you are still keeping tabs here.

[Scott]

To Oliver Steinberg,
There's a big difference between guns and drugs: you have a Constitutional Right to own guns, it's called the Second Amendment; you DO NOT have a Constitutional right to use drugs. So therefore your comment about the government "kowtowing" to the "gun lobby" doesn't hold water. It's not "kowtowing" it's the government upholding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution which is what they're supposed to do. The Second Amendment is just as important and sacrosanct as all the others. The Second Amendment is not a bastard Red Haired Stepchild. Having said that, I agree in theory that drugs should be legalized, but with certain conditions that would not be negotiable; Those conditions are as follows, I or any other U.S. taxpayer will not be forced to pay for the food, clothing, housing, and transportation for heroin addicts. I know how the liberals that run this country think. They think we have to be "compassionate" to people who deliberately ruin their lives with drugs, and of course the taxpayers should foot the bill. That's a load of bullcrap. It's not my problem if some druggie can't keep his life on track while using his "drug of choice". If it was made clear to drug addicts that the taxpayers would not pay their way, then yes by all means, legalize every damn drug on the books that's illegal. I personally don't care if someone ruins their life through drug use. But know this, the minute you start forcing me through taxation to pay for said addicts, then all bets are off and the drugs would be made illegal again. It's like the old saying goes; "You wanna dance? You gotta pay the fiddler." I'll add to that by saying, "And you better not expect someone else to pay the fiddler either."