Many conservatives use the death penalty as some sort of barometer for haw tough a politician may be on the issue of violent crime involving murder. First off, let us examine the issue in depth. Ask your self a few questions. Has the death penalty reduced the amount of murders in the U.S.? Has the death penalty created a guaranteed way out or years or a lifetime of imprisonment? The argument could be made that the death penalty creates a fulfillment of suicidal wishes of those convicted of murder. Is the death penalty a gift to those who face the possibility of life in prison? I would ask you, is it more of a penalty to live out the rest of your life with the guilt and confinement that are associated with a murder conviction? I would argue that the death penalty is a vacation provided for by the state from a convicts mental anguish for heinous immoral acts. If conservatives are all about harsh punishment you would think they would be against the death penalty and for the murderer to be sentenced to a lifetime of watching the view, or reruns of concentration camp pictures and video 23 hours a day. Is death an escape from the thought and regret of taking another human life?
The Crime Conundrum
Unpacking Clinton's pledge to cut the murder rate.
- Share:
-
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
In Philadelphia murder stories have become as commonplace as the ball scores. On Friday two brothers were sentenced to life in prison for killing a father of five to get even with his son. Late last month a man standing on a downtown subway platform died after falling victim to an apparently random attack. And in February the fatal shooting of a 15-year-old made headlines; the victim was allegedly killed in retaliation for a snowball, tossed at a friend, that inadvertently struck his assailant.
In short, the city, reeling from 392 murders last year, is a sensible place for a politician to talk about how to crack down on violent crime. Sen. Hillary Clinton availed herself of the opportunity Friday, unveiling a crime initiative in which she pledged that, if elected president, she would "focus on cities with high homicide rates—and cut those rates in half."
Could she? Like many other major American cities, Philadelphia suffers from a toxic mix of poverty and addiction that plagues communities where opportunities for education and employment are too few and too far between. Most criminologists agree that these factors help drive violent crime—a problem that is often exacerbated during economic downturns. Clinton says she will target specific high-crime cities where she will deploy more police using "improved technology and tactics"; bestow grants for reducing gang violence and drug markets; improve community partnerships with police; and spearhead a federal initiative to crack down on gun trafficking.
But would any of that come close to cutting the murder rate in half? Jake Sullivan, Clinton's deputy policy director, tells NEWSWEEK that the 50 percent murder-rate-reduction goal is "both ambitious and achievable with the right resources and right strategies … She looked at New York's success in reducing murders from more than 2,000 to less than 500 and other examples of successful efforts, including recent ones in Cincinnati and Chicago, and concluded that 50 percent was the right figure."
David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice who has worked with many cities to reduce gang violence and open-air drug markets, helped Clinton's team design the proposal. Kennedy says cutting the crime rate in half in Philadelphia and cities like it would not be difficult with the right programs in place. Kennedy worked with the Boston Police Department during the 1990s, when the city achieved a dramatic reduction in homicides (from 152 in 1990 to 31 in 1999). The program he launched there, known as Operation Ceasefire, is one of the centerpieces of Clinton's plan. Under that program prosecutors, police, gang outreach workers and social service agencies sat down together with gang members, told them violence would be met with punishment, and followed up by offering help to kids who wanted it and cracking down hard on those who kept shooting.
While Ceasefire surely made a difference in Boston, there may well have been other factors at work in easing the violent crime rate. An economic renaissance in the '90s helped cut the murder rate dramatically in a number of major cities—New York, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego and Detroit among them. Those conditions may be hard to replicate in the wake of the subprime mortgage mess and credit crunch that have brought the American economy to the brink of recession. But Kennedy still thinks big cuts in the murder rate are possible. "I think we could do better than half," he says. "It's quite clear that deliberate action made a big difference in violent crime." Kennedy points to a Ceasefire program he launched in Cincinnati last April that appears to be working; homicides are down by 45 percent over last year at this time.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
