Ellington

According to the AP, U.S. Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez announced that he plans to study an apparent rise in violent crime reported in 2005 over 2004, which itself saw a spike. The study will focus on larger urban areas, although the mayors and police chiefs in his audience -- who have been called upon to implement various homeland security measures in addition to crime fighting responsibilities -- have asked for financial help as well.

Money quote:

"We need to figure out the whys behind the numbers - whether the story is good or bad," Gonzales said in a 16-minutes speech. He did not specify which cities would be studied.

What could be "good" about a rise in violent crime is also something that the Attorney General failed to articulate.

Amusingly, the conservative "newswire" NewsMax headlined the story Justice Department Tackles Violent Crime and described the study as "new prevention efforts" that will be implemented by Gonzalez, although no actual "prevention" or "efforts" were in evidence.

Previous Comments

ID

107881

Comment

Y'all, just imagine if this story had come out on the local level during the last administration: "Harvey Johnson decides to study rise in crime." Lots of N-JAM blood vessels would be popping, eh? And this rise in crime couldn't possibly have anything to do with the rising poverty in this country, right? After all, everyone knows that poor people are not more likely to commit crimes. No way.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-17T17:28:40-06:00

ID

107882

Comment

I'm against it somewhat. I am very very wary of the idea of Homeland Security. I can see how it can be expanded to include regular local crime. Just one more step to expanding the concept of domestic terrorism to where it will include political opponents one day. call me a worrywart.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-17T17:40:40-06:00

ID

107883

Comment

Kingfish: I'm with you. Although I think the expansion of such powers began with another "war" -- the "War on Drugs" -- and you can see that abuse of power much closer to home. Call me libertarian...:-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-10-17T17:52:02-06:00

ID

107884

Comment

The war on drugs was where alot of little exceptions were created. I'll give you an example. The NRA types, of which I am one, were all for the war on drugs. Well, the Clinton admin. argued in court that guns should be held to be inherently dangerous in and of themselves like drugs are and that since we have that holding for drugs (just the mere possession of them is dangerous) that the same should apply to firearms as well. There was alot of hell raising in the firearms press about what the Clinton administration was arguing in court. What they forgot was when you create some exceptions they can be used for other laws as well. Asset seizures, suspension of due process, the militarization of law enforcment, all gained ground because of the war on drugs. People forget that the Roman Republic Civil Wars in large part were inflamed because each party began criminalizing their political opponents, stripping them of their property and rights, and sending them into exile or worse (drove Caesar to invade Rome).

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-17T17:58:14-06:00

ID

107885

Comment

Study crime. Wow, hadn't thought of that one.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-17T19:57:00-06:00

ID

107886

Comment

I suspect "study" actually means: Put off talking about this as long as we can—until after this year's election at least.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-17T19:58:46-06:00

ID

107887

Comment

Sounds like it. Besides, what can the government do about it anyway? Nothing except interfere.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-17T19:59:52-06:00

ID

107888

Comment

Well, they could refrain from policies that increase crime. But they won't.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-17T20:59:30-06:00

ID

107889

Comment

Policies that increase crime? I don't believe anyone is forced to carjack, rape, murder or whatnot. People do it on their own. Sure, the "field" might be fertile for such behavior, but people make those choices.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-17T21:06:37-06:00

ID

107890

Comment

Policies that increase crime? I don't believe anyone is forced to carjack, rape, murder or whatnot. People do it on their own. Sure, the "field" might be fertile for such behavior, but people make those choices. Booorrrinng. Yes, committing a crime is a personal choice. But *preventing* crime is an art and a science and it's a political endeavor. A set of poorly thought-out policies can certainly increase the likelihood of crime -- for instance, you could make all deer-hunting illegal in the state of Mississippi or you could pull all the street lights from highly trafficked tourism districts. Both would likely increase crime. As does, say, fiscal and public policies that don't provide a solid social safety net and a second chance for people will small children and drug arrests on their record.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-10-17T21:20:05-06:00

ID

107891

Comment

Deer hunting? Hardy har har. ;-) Not to say that smart people would actually be willing to look out *why* certain people make those choices, and others don't—if they want to do more than just complain and actually prevent people from making those choices. Otherwise, we can all just kick back and whine about all the crime, while we do nothing about it. Especially considering that many of the studies already done show that many of our criminal-justice polices (including sentencing juveniles as adults) actually increases crime and recidivism.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-17T21:27:39-06:00

ID

107892

Comment

Banning Deer hunting? Ha! :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-17T21:59:14-06:00