Select Page

Liberals Lessen Punishment For Criminals, Is It Helping?

Liberals Lessen Punishment For Criminals, Is It Helping?

We have seen a move by the left to soften the stigma of a label of being a felon, to make it seem less of an uncivilized thing to be caught and punished for a crime. But it does not stop here, now they are trying to reduce the punishment for crimes, their reasoning is that minorities are more represented in this group then anyone else, to be socially just we need to fix this. But is this working?

We can start in San Francisco, where instead of prosecuting open use of illegal narcotics, they are setting up clinics to aid them in their addiction, pass out free needles, the police are now unable to arrest, so how is the problem there?

We have seen in the public spaces, drug addicts sit outside courtrooms, government offices, in bus stations in a point of stupor, caught up in their drug haze where they are. People are facing an increasingly hostile and aggressive homeless community, one that is more and more so spreading crime all over San Francisco, as I noted yesterday, the moves by the liberals in charge of these major cities are rapidly turning them into a third world hell holes.

As is stated in FOX, crime-ridden San Francisco has introduced a new sanitized language for criminals, getting rid of words such as “offender” and “addict” while changing “convicted felon” to “justice-involved person.” But I must wonder, what is this doing other than excusing away lousy behavior?

The claim of California is that this will release the stigma on the person who committed the crime, but one could ask, is not the stigma productive in seeing that they don’t do so again?

They say calling drug addicts and Meth or Crackheads as addicts are counterproductive, so now they are calling them “a person with a history of substance use.” I must wonder if they are out, and still using then what do you call them? And wouldn’t it be better to correctly label, then you have a more accurate idea of what you are treating?

I have no issue with giving second chances, in the last business I used to hire convicts that had gotten out of jail, wanted to aid them on their way, let them see there is a way to earn a living without resorting to crime to do so. At no time did I explain away or lesson the crime they had done, I wanted them to remember it, to know that the outcome of this was never worth the gratification they got for a moment while doing it.

Last, I wonder, what is this doing to the morale of police? We have California now tying the hands of police. Their governor just signed legislation in that further tied the hands of police when dealing with violent suspects. The taking away the ability to use extreme force, the police now have to wait for the suspect to be using extreme force before they can respond in type, where before they could react if they saw it was escalating to this point.

Image result for police attacked during arrest in Philadelphia

California thinks this will be a model to the rest of the country, I say no thanks, the police should have the right to defend themselves without being endangered first. As we watch the politicians take the criminal’s side, let the claims of victimization go forward, we are going to see the suicides we see in the police now expand, they are feeling under siege, and they don’t have their leaders backing them up.

We are seeing crime on the rise, attacks against police becoming commonplace, this is not lessening crime, like all the other liberal moves, all this is doing is making a bad situation much, much worse.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Bitnami