WaPo editorial board: people are scared of crime

[Anonymous]

Being concerned about a local government failing in its duty to ensure public safety and well-being does not equate to being scared of rising crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being concerned about a local government failing in its duty to ensure public safety and well-being does not equate to being scared of rising crime.

Racist.

[Anonymous]

Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

[Anonymous]

It's like you couldn't see his coming with all the pushback to a strong, police presence??

Somehow putting criminals in jail is now a no-no. Don't get it; never will. You let the criminals off the hook, I promise they will do it again and again and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being concerned about a local government failing in its duty to ensure public safety and well-being does not equate to being scared of rising crime.

Racist.

Nope, but enjoy living in the increasing lawlessness of the city that puts everyone's safety in jeopardy, including your safety and the safety of your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

There's not much to explain. Being less tough on crime won't reduce it; lenient punishments will only cause crime to increase exponentially and accelerate the downward spiral. If we're going to make a meaningful difference, we have to -- as a society -- give people hope. We have to validate their personhood and structure public policies in such a way that support -- among other things -- more equitable education, housing, and transportation. Simply being less tough on crime won't solve the problem by itself; it will make the ultimate solution more difficult to achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

There's not much to explain. Being less tough on crime won't reduce it; lenient punishments will only cause crime to increase exponentially and accelerate the downward spiral. If we're going to make a meaningful difference, we have to -- as a society -- give people hope. We have to validate their personhood and structure public policies in such a way that support -- among other things -- more equitable education, housing, and transportation. Simply being less tough on crime won't solve the problem by itself; it will make the ultimate solution more difficult to achieve.

It starts in the family, or the breakdown of the family. That is at the root of the problem. And we can fix that. In the mean time, lock them up to keep us all safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

I understand your frustration but I think you’re missing the point. Reducing crime isn’t the purpose of this movement. It is inner city politicians placating their constituents …and their constituents want government handouts, less policing, and large settlements if the police have the audacity to treat criminals like criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

I understand your frustration but I think you’re missing the point. Reducing crime isn’t the purpose of this movement. It is inner city politicians placating their constituents …and their constituents want government handouts, less policing, and large settlements if the police have the audacity to treat criminals like criminals.

Agree with this point. So those behind the movement get what they want from the politicians they elect and those that live in these areas that don't agree are royally screwed. That is why you got to get out if you while you can. It is democracy in action ie you get what you vote for. Sadly, this strategy will never actually allow the community to flourish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

White Guilt for the mass incarceration of AAs, usually on petty drug possession charges that didn't warrant it, but that's the gist of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

White Guilt for the mass incarceration of AAs, usually on petty drug possession charges that didn't warrant it, but that's the gist of it.

White Fear that their property values would plummet if crime became an issue in their gentrified neighborhoods. "That was a car backfire; that was not a gunshot, Shaw is a perfectly safe neighborhood. Oh sh*t, here comes an ambulance. Can we clean up the blood before tomorrow's open house."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

White Guilt for the mass incarceration of AAs, usually on petty drug possession charges that didn't warrant it, but that's the gist of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there this movement to not prosecute crimes or allow some crimes? Why is there a leniency push these last few years? What is driving it? Who supports it? I honestly don’t get how being less tough on crime will help reduce crime. Can some please explain it clearly?

There's not much to explain. Being less tough on crime won't reduce it; lenient punishments will only cause crime to increase exponentially and accelerate the downward spiral. If we're going to make a meaningful difference, we have to -- as a society -- give people hope. We have to validate their personhood and structure public policies in such a way that support -- among other things -- more equitable education, housing, and transportation. Simply being less tough on crime won't solve the problem by itself; it will make the ultimate solution more difficult to achieve.

It starts in the family, or the breakdown of the family. That is at the root of the problem. And we can fix that. In the mean time, lock them up to keep us all safer.

Newt, where have you been all these years?