Criminal Justice Reformers Need to Take the Increase in Violent Crime Seriously

|

(1) Criminal justice/police reform managed to make it high on the public agenda because the huge nationwide reduction in violent crime over the last thirty years, which made people more receptive to arguments about excessive police force, excessive sentencing, racial profiling, etc.

(2) If the huge and unprecedented increase in violent crime last year, and especially murder, marks the beginning of a trend, it will sink criminal justice/police reform.

(3) Therefore, it is imperative that people who believe in criminal justice/police reform take the increase in crime seriously.

I mean, they should anyway, because violent crime is a bad thing all around, but just from the perspective of reformism, it's a disaster.

NEXT: What a Nice Footnote in a Court Opinion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Violent crime has direct costs in money and in suffering. It has indirect costs, in dropping real estate prices. It hurts the economy and causes unemployment. Tech billionaires benefit from all that. Thus support of criminal justice reform by the Koch people, owners of Reason.

    Massive criminality, especially violent crime, is the biggest failure of the lawyer profession. Billions of internet crimes are not being counted. The failed lawyer needs to be crushed to save this nation.

    1. The Kochs don’t own Reason, and the notion that “tech billionaires” benefit from lower real estate prices, a bad economy, and higher unemployment is preposterous.

      1. Mandatory sentencing guidelines dropped crime by 40%. That also resulted in massive unemployment for law school grads.

        The rent seeking lawyer profession also benefits from higher crime rates. The pure evil self dealing of lawyers, of tech billionaires, tough to say, which is worse.

        1. “The rent seeking lawyer profession also benefits from higher crime rates. ”

          Really – most criminal defense attorneys dont have a lot of high paying clients. Possibly some white collar criminals have money, but not your run of the mill criminal.

          1. “Really – most criminal defense attorneys dont have a lot of high paying clients.

            Based on the defense attorneys I observed as the adviser of undergrads who got themselves into trouble, most criminal defense attorneys really aren’t that high caliber attorneys, either.

            I think he is talking about folks like General Flynn, who hired expensive lawyers and has major bills as a result.

            1. “I think he is talking about folks like General Flynn, who hired expensive lawyers and has major bills as a result.”

              If so, he changed the subject of his prior comment – from violent criminals to white collar crime. He wasnt being consistent.

              1. No. General Flynn is not a white collar criminal — he is a falsely accused man.

                1. *Correctly accused of a classic 1001 offense. Is the way that offense is typically changed bad? Yes. But Flynn isn’t special in regards to experiencing one.

                  1. He was accused based on FBI notes of an interview that were edited weeks after that interview, by people who were not present at the interview, in violation of clear FBI policy. Which part of that is “correct” to you?

        2. I like how you didn’t address how “tech billionaires” are supposed to benefit from ANY OF THAT.

          “People are poorer and out of work. This benefits us because REASONS SHUT UP!”

          Apple doesn’t want poor unemployed people everywhere. They want people who can afford to buy an iPhone or Mac.

          Google can’t make money selling ads to people without money to spend on products.

          Amazon’s retail end needs customers, and AWS needs clients – clients who make money selling things to customers.

          Please explain how “tech billionaires” think they benefit from the state of affairs you postulate.

          Without just namecalling and asserting, that is. Tell us HOW.

          1. Sigi. Most central cities in the world are expensive. Their suburbs are cheap. Crime suppresses real estate prices in the central cities of the US. Poverty from high crime makes workers cheaper and desperate to accept lower wages.

            Trump caused a labor shortage. Wages were on the verge of exploding for the first time in 50 years. That is why he had to go. The lowest %ile already had unheard of 10% raises. Trump had to go or the profits of the tech billionaires would be hurt.

  2. Criminal justice reform also need to grapple with the fact that blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the murders. And don’t say that murders are a result of racial discrimination.

    Let the black man alone, to rise or fall on his own.

    1. Why does it rarely take more than a handful of comments for this blog to veer toward bigotry?

      The Volokh Conspirators should consider that point. As should legitimate law schools considering whether to implement affirmative action (Heterodox Academy style) for movement conservatives seeking faculty positions.

      1. I heard blog posts sometimes even attract commenters who think that the entire Jewish population of Israel should be forcibly removed to Texas.

        1. If that jab is aimed at me, professor, your memory fails you.

          No need to apologize. Everyone makes mistakes, particularly when partisanship slants recollection.

          1. Doesn’t your comment sum you up?

            1. Which comment? How?

          2. Yeah, you said Texas or West Virginia.

            1. I have proposed that Americans offer citizenship to all (or essentially all) Israelis, for several reasons. I also have proposed that Americans consider statehood for Israel.

              I have said nothing about forced relocation, in part because I never thought of it, in part because I would oppose it. Texas or West Virginia were mentioned as locations that could be recommended to new Americans from Israel.

              I believe right-wingers know all of this. When they have no ammunition, they fling feces.

              Carry on, clingers. Especially the most aggressive bigots among movement conservatives. Your betters’ ankles can withstand all of your paltry nips and whimpers.

        2. “I heard blog posts sometimes even attract commenters who think that the entire Jewish population of Israel should be forcibly removed to Texas.”

          Are you prepared to clarify and defend your position with respect to that charge, Prof. Bernstein? Or are you just another disaffected conservative coward nipping at the ankles of your betters? It is one or the other.

          If this flusters you, ask Prof. Volokh to use censorship to try to control debate. Again.

          1. Falsehood-flinging cowards — movement conservative milksops — are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        3. I thought and said at the time that Arthur’s proposal was dumb and offensive. But I don’t recall him proposing that the hypothetical relocation be forcible. IIRC, his suggestion was that relocation to Texas (or West Virginia?) be offered, not required. Seems to me that’s a pretty important difference.

          Maybe my memory is faulty. It wouldn’t be the first time. Can you show where Arthur said the relocation should be mandatory? If so, I’ll own my mistake and apologize for the distraction. If you can’t, I think you owe Arthur an apology for scurrilously misstating his proposal.

          1. The Volokh Conspirators don’t apologize.

            Their playground, their rules.

          2. He definitely owes Arthur an apology. It would be incredibly dishonorable for Prof. Bernstein to take a snarky jab like that and be wrong about it and not apologize. He obviously doesn’t like Arthur, or he wouldn’t have taken the jab, but wrong is wrong.

            Prof. Bernstein, apologize or provide proof of your accusation. Don’t be cowardly.

            1. No one owes RAK anything except a good hit upside the head.

              1. Yeah, who cares about right and wrong?

                You’re very principled.

              2. The measure of a man is how he treats those who he doesn’t have to treat well, those who, for whatever reason, might be deemed “less than” so that the usual rules of etiquette, morality, and law don’t apply. I thought fighting this type of thing was precisely what Bernstein was against.

                Whatever Arthur’s merits as a person in your or Bernstein’s opinion, Bernstein chose to engage with him and wronged him (unless he has proof to the contrary). If Bernstein is a man of the principles he espouses, then he will apologize.

                Showing virtue when it is difficult is the only time it is actually virtue. Otherwise, it’s just moral preening and furthering one’s own self-interest.

                The question is whether Bernstein is a man of virtue.

      2. “Criminal justice reform also need to grapple with the fact that blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the murders. ”
        “And don’t say that murders are a result of racial discrimination.”

        Stating Facts is racist bigotry.

        How can we stop bigotry if the racists bigots dont acknowledge the facts.

        1. The fact that black people are over represented among the criminal population is not racist.

          Making that observation as a non-sequitur and suggesting that the solution to rising crime trends is to remove black people from American society, on the other hand, at least raises some serious red flags.

          1. “suggesting that the solution to rising crime trends is to remove black people from American society” is something that you imagined, you realize that, right? Nobody actually suggested that.

            1. Nobody has to suggest it because it has been government policy for 50 years.

              1. Somebody should’ve told President Obama that he wasn’t supposed to be president, he was supposed to be removed from society due to Government Policy…

          2. It is not a non-sequitur.

            He did not asseverate that the solution to rising crime is to remove black people from American society.

            Do you have a problem with incarcerating those black people who assault, batter, murder, rape, shoplift, participate in knock-outs, and burn, loot, and vandalize property?

            Do you have a problem with the principle of holding black people accountable for their behavior?

            Do you have a problem with highlighting the high incidence of black social dysfunction as manifested by

            (1) black women being far more likely than white women to abort their babies;

            (2) black women being far more likely than asian women to abort their babies;

            (3) black babies being far more likely than white babies to be raised in single parent households;

            (4) black babies being far more likely than asian babies to be raised in single parent households;

            (5) black males being far more likely to rape white women than white males are to rape black women;

            (6) blacks males being far more likely than white males to commit crimes of interracial violence;

            (7) black males being far more likely than asian males to commit crimes of interracial violence;

            (8) blacks being far more likely than whites to drop out of school before completing high school; and

            (9) blacks being far more likely than asians to drop out of school before completing high school

      3. Crime victimization survey data are the gold standard of crime measurement. They support a 4 fold rate of black crime victimization, 95% of it by black criminals, the darlings of the Democrat Party and of the rent seeking lawyer profession,

      4. re: “Why does it rarely take more than a handful of comments for this blog to veer toward bigotry?”

        Because you never take a vacation, RAK. Your comments are regularly the most bigoted and incivil in these comment threads. And given some of the other commenters here, that’s saying something.

      5. Do you deny that 13% of the population commits 50% of the homicides? Ir is that a hate fact that only a bigot would notice, and decent people would pretend isn’t true?

    2. “Criminal justice reform also need to grapple with the fact that blacks are 13% of the population, but commit 50% of the murders.”

      Why? Even if true, who gives a shit what color the criminals are?

      1. Well, some people seem to give a large number of shits about the percentages of prisoners of one color rather than another. The numbers cited by diogenes tend to refute the charge that racism is the only plausible explanation of the disproportion.

      2. Because the problem is not genes or skin color, but cultural groups. Immigrant blacks and those American blacks that grow up outside of ‘black culture’ have similar outcomes as whites of the same sec status.

        As long as there is a refusal to recognize that there are problems with that specific culture, and government polices help perpetuate it, the problem will only get worse.

      3. Even if true, who gives a shit what color the criminals are?

        Because you can’t begin to address a problem without first acknowledging it, and the fact that a specific demographic is so disproportionately represented in the total number of those committing crimes (especially violent crimes) suggests that there is a causative correlation between that result and one or more properties of that demographic.

    3. Tell us specifically what you had in mind. How do you propose criminal justice reform addresses the racial disparity and what do you mean by “Let the black man alone, to rise or fall on his own”?

      1. I don’t know what some blog commenter means by it, but I’ve certainly heard of such sentiments before:

        “What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. [Applause.] The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don’t disturb him!”

        https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1865-frederick-douglass-what-black-man-wants/

        1. (Unfortunately for libertarians, he *was* for what we call public-accommodation laws, at least for actual public accommodations like restaurants. I don’t know what he’d think about baking the cake.)

          1. Adopting Douglass’s prescriptions on public policy toward race, even including public accommodation laws, would still leave us a lot better off than we are at present.

      2. Which racial disparity?
        The racial disparity in crime rates?
        or the racial disparity in incarceration rates?

        1. The one the OP raised. So “racial disparity crime rates” specifically murder. How could you have not understood that?

    4. And Blacks are the majority of their victims as well.

      What people forget about the enhanced sentences for Crack were in response to efforts from the *Black* community to do something about Crack and the related crime.

      HOWEVER, remember that the Black illegitimacy rate is now 76%.
      Factor that in and I suspect that the statistics would balance out.

    5. Don’t forget the far more troubling fact that cops are still twenty times more likely to kill someone than blacks, given they kill about a third of the people blacks do while being outnumbered about 70 to 1 by them.

      1. Why is that disparity troubling? Are Black people generally employed to enforce laws, putting them in regular contact with criminals, including violent criminals?

        American police arrest (and also kill) many, many more civilians than uniformed military do. Is that a problem or a reflection of sound laws?

        1. Because cops are over 20 times more likely to kill people than blacks are, and we’ve all seen cops kill folks that should not be killed, we know their names thanks to the protests.

          If you want to say 13% = 50%, be consistent. Do the math on the cops’ side too. You don’t because that leaves your favorite boogeyman in the dust, not even remotely close.

  3. If the huge and unprecedented increase in violent crime last year, and especially murder, marks the beginning of a trend, it will sink criminal justice/police reform.

    This begs the question of how much this increase was due to the sudden and jarring dislocation and stress of the COVID-19 crisis. I suspect a great deal.

    Of course, the crisis continues, and looks like it will for a while. So that has to be taken into account. But if we get back to normal in, say, a year, then one wonders whether the “trend” will turn out to only be a temporary result of a crisis.

    1. BL,
      You point out a plausible contribution.
      We should not, however, neglect the direct facial assault on the legitimacy of our police forces during a period of greatly increased societal stress, felt most acutely by the mentally ill. Unfortunately it is our local police who must deal most directly with the mentally ill despite minimal training and despite vastly undersized state facilities to treat the mentally ill. That situation is especially acute in CA where little to no efforts (and money) has been expended to ameliorate the situation.

    2. It’s unlikely that covid had much to do with it. For starters, the murder rate was going relatively the same as 2019 and then suddenly skyrocketed, not with the start of the covid restrictions, but instead at the end of May. You can see it below on the chart compiled from the Gun Violence Archive.

      What other big event in the news coincided with the end of May last year? (Hint: it rhymes with “George Floyd”).

      https://www.thetrace.org/2020/12/shootings-data-philadelphia-cleveland-chicago-gun-violence/

      1. That’s too simplistic an analysis, John. Police abuse as bad and worse than the Floyd matter happened on a regular basis. What was different this time was that it occurred right as lots of people were realizing that this “temporary” lockout was not temporary. They had no jobs, couldn’t go to school, could barely go to the store and couldn’t even go to the park for exercise. Too much free time and not enough responsibility. Frustration and generalized anxiety levels were through the roof. Also contributing – the weather improved. Statistically, no matter how bad the abuse, people don’t go out to protest in January. Protests happen in part because they are fun. Freezing to death puts a damper on the fun.

        You want to blame the spark while Bored wants to call attention to the folks to piled up the fuel. Both were necessary for the fire. But the sparks were always there.

        1. But we had the EXACT SAME surge in violent crime a few years back after the riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, etc. It even has a name, the “Ferguson effect”. The surge this time was more widespread because the protests were widespread.

          Also, the surge in homicides rose the most concentrated in the largest cities where protests were concentrated. If it was simply due to overall people being bored because of covid, the homicides would have been more evenly distributed around the country.

          1. Not exactly. We had surges before but they were much more localized to the area where the abuse was publicized. It became national this time because people were, well, not “bored” but not gainfully employed either.

            And while, yes, the homicides were concentrated in cities where the protests occurred, there are some other notable correlations. Those cities were, for the most part, governed by mayors who imposed some of the strictest restrictions and whose populace were most affected. Cities with lesser restrictions tended to have fewer protests and lower homicide increases.

            1. Wait Rossami…What made the Floyd matter different were the facts.

              The incident was filmed; and,
              Derek Chauvin displayed complete and utter indifference to Floyd’s life, despite the fact there was a crowd gathered screaming at him to let up on Floyd’s neck; and
              There was not one other cop, not two other cops, but three other cops just standing there and watching.

              You could not watch that video and fail to be outraged. I look at the Floyd case like I look at the Rodney King case. It was so flagrant, so incendiary, the reaction we got was bound to happen.

              The pandemic exacerbated the reaction.

              1. The Floyd facts were not all that different. Look to your own comment. They were substantially the same as the King case. And to lots of other documented examples of police abuse throughout recent history. (The guy selling loosies in NY jumps to mind, though I can’t recall his name right now.)

                You say the pandemic exacerbated the reaction. That’s exactly my point (and Bored’s I think). Without the pandemic lockdowns, the Floyd matter would have been just as reprehensible and might have led to some local riots but it wouldn’t have led to nationwide riots or the complete collapse of civil authority in multiple cities.

                1. HIs name was Eric Garner.

                2. Rossami, you made an interesting point about the weather. I wonder if cold weather will coincide with the rate of violent crime (esp. murder) declining. It is something I am making a mental note to watch.

                  I believe we would have had nationwide riots in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, even without the pandemic. Maybe it is me; I found the Floyd video truly horrifying, and haunting. I wonder if I had been a bystander, would I have had the courage to step forward and approach Chauvin to get him to stop, or simply distract him enough that he let up on Floyd’s neck. I hope that I never find out.

                  And you’re right Rossami, things like that really do happen, and too often. And Eric Garner, the one you’re thinking about? God, what a terrible killing. And Pantaleo, the cop who killed him? He walks the streets; he is not behind bars. Yeah Ok, he got fired (five years after the fact). He literally killed another man on camera, and walked. The law was followed, but justice was not done.

                  The Diallo case in NYC was pretty bad, too.

        2. That’s too simplistic an analysis, John. Police abuse as bad and worse than the Floyd matter happened on a regular basis.

          It’s obviously not the death of George Floyd itself that launched the increase in crime. It was the reaction to that death–the riots and the moves to defund the police. (Of course, it didn’t take a crystal ball to be able to tell that the outcome would be an increase in crime, primarily hurting the very demographic that the defunders claimed to be championing. Black lives only really matter to those who want to use them as props for their own virtue-signalling.)

  4. It seems like these issues have always been linked:

    1) Police departments that communities don’t trust are going to have a much harder time dealing with violent crime because the community won’t risk their health and safety by interacting with police. I mean there are so many instances where calling the police makes things worse, the citizens have to weigh the risks of calling.

    2) Even when community members do trust them, officers are often dismissive of citizen concerns in the areas they patrol (or “occupy”) and thus don’t actually do anything regarding violent crime. These incompetent officers not only continue in their positions but are rewarded and praised. The officer who returned a victim to Jeffrey Dahmer due to his homophobia and racist dismissal of citizen complaints became union president and was later praised by the Milwaukee PD upon his retirement in…2020. How are you supposed to solve violent crime when the officers who do nothing about it remain in the department and get praised and promoted?

    3) Long sentences, horrible prison conditions, and horrible post-release support don’t do much to make crime less likely. I mean tossing someone into an environment of constant violence isn’t necessarily going to make someone less violent.

    And not for nothing: but excessive force is if not a violent crime itself, is part of the overall violence of society generally. So doing something about violent crime doesn’t necessarily mean turning a blind eye to police violence.

    1. LTG,
      Fortunately you betray your political biases in (2) when you use “occupy.” You site a singular, horrible example with any need to provide balance to your remarks.
      As for (3), what is your solution, leave criminals on the streets?

      It is so easy to criticize, but much harder to suggest practical approaches.

      1. I got the idea of occupying from the police themselves. Read the DOJ report on the Cleveland police department, they behaved as if they were occupying their own community.

        The singular horrible example could not have happened without institutional support from a rotten police department. I mean the dude was the union president and praised. That doesn’t happen unless the entire department is completely oblivious to the concerns of citizens.

        As for my solution: I would make conditions less horrible, abolish QI and open up more judicial avenues to challenge conditions, actually hold prison officers responsible for their violent and negligent acts, make prisons less crowded by reducing the number of incarcerable offenses, and take an actual empirical look at whether lengthy sentences actually do anything for a wide variety of crimes. Then I would create more social support for people released from prison to help them avoid returning to criminal acts.

        1. None of which would fix the actual root problem.

      2. Don Nico,
        LTG has responded w some suggested approaches. I would like to see your response to those (in constructively-dealing-with-substance mode as opposed to lawyerly-win-the-debate mode, if that’s not a bridge too far).

    2. I mean tossing someone into an environment of constant violence isn’t necessarily going to make someone less violent.

      No, but if you put him, and all the other violent people, into prison, it has a remarkable way of making the communities from which they were separated more peaceful.

      1. I am pretty sure “environment of constant violence” was a reference to prison. The ideal solution would be to lock up those who are bound to re-offend, and use other approaches to reform those who can be reformed. Unfortunately, there is no crystal ball that will tell us whether someone will re-offend in the future, and most attempts to create one are declared racist.

  5. Most people who want criminal justice reform do not live near places where violent crime occurs. They don’t see it, so can’t take the increase seriously.
    It’s sort of like those who telecommute in order to stay safe from COVID don’t consider that refineries, power plants, and garbage pick-up have kept on with little change. It is expected, so invisible.

    1. Most people who don’t want reform also don’t live there. I mean its a bunch of suburbanite or rural politicians who oppose it most loudly, because they don’t have to deal with violent police as much.

      1. That’s it you got it, it’s the violent police killing at a double digit rate in Chicago? Nope

        Suburbs and country folk commit crime at a way lower rate than the urban folk.

        The neighborhood doesn’t suck because of the police it sucks because of the residents.

        1. Please continue with this train of thought. I’m sure it won’t end in a discussion of which races have criminal skull shapes.

          1. Didn’t mention race. You did because you can’t debate.

            The train of thought is that suburban and rural folks don’t have a crime problem.

            Your turn.

            1. “The train of thought is that suburban and rural folks don’t have a crime problem.”

              Having lived in the suburbs and worked in a rural area…that’s just hilariously untrue. Assaults, sexual assaults, drugs, DUIs, theft, vandalism, etc. And that was just high school.

              “Didn’t mention race. You did because you can’t debate.”

              I mentioned it because there is this little thing called understanding context and making inferences. I swear most of conservative debating tactics are based on the idea that humans missed the “context clues” lessons from elementary school. Like who are the residents of the cities and what is there demography? Who are the residents of the suburbs and rural areas in your head?

              1. Well you’re wrong. Bring some stats because I never ever hear that there was double digit murders in the suburbs of Chicago. All violent crime is worse urban vs non-urban.

                Since you’re just wrong whatever you mention along that line of thought is wrong. You want to infer that murder should be demographic to the general population. Laughable its not in some many ways, some racial some not.

                I haven’t seen a cop in my neighborhood in over a year. Because? The residents are law abiding

                1. You’re moving the goal posts from crime to murder.

                  “I haven’t seen a cop in my neighborhood in over a year. Because? The residents are law abiding.”

                  LOL. Bet plenty of people have shoplifted, and committed sexual assault, driven drunk, or are engaged in some white collar stuff. And there are a large number that have certainly purchased illegal drugs.

                  You haven’t seen a cop in your neighborhood, because they have no interest in policing the crimes of suburbanites.

                  1. Problem is, LTG, your “reforms” tend to exacerbate the situation, not make it better.

                2. “Bring some stats…”

                  Yea! Bring some stats like “I haven’t seen a cop in my neighborhood in over a year…” Very compelling.

              2. I swear most of conservative debating tactics are based on the idea that humans missed the “context clues” lessons from elementary school. Like who are the residents of the cities and what is there demography?

                Poor single-parent families producing children in a culture of entitlement and no regard for education or personal responsibility, largely created by “progressive” policies that were enacted to use an entire demographic as political pawns rather than human beings.

          2. LYG, repeat after me: 76% illegitimacy rate…

    2. As a libertarian I am against stop and frisk. But I notice the people who live in these high crime neighborhoods tend to be in favor of it. It is the people who get in their BMWs and go home to their gated communities in the evening who can afford to be against it, safety-wise.

      1. And have the stupid virtue signaling lawn signs.

  6. Does it occur to you that you’re talking about Americans being murdered and you clearly understand that your audience does not care about murdered Americans.

    So you’re attempting to persuade people who obviously do not care about murdered Americans that they should care. Not because murders are bad or to prevent the suffering of the murder victims or their families, but because murders might derail their political agenda.

    Those are the types of people you take your cues from.

    1. Ben_, this article is about criminal justice reform, not gun control and mass shootings. Stay on topic please.

      1. What a weird thing to say. The topic is crime against Americans, not any of the other things you mentioned and I didn’t.

        But we wouldn’t want sympathy for crime victims to get in the way of an intellectual discussion about optimizing political advantage.

        1. I’m just pointing out that every time someone tries to care about murder in mass shootings, people like you tend to find ways to not care about it at all and accuse people of using the victims as props.

          1. Pretending to care so you can pass laws to harass people who are not like you is yet another off-topic discussion item I did not bring up.

            1. Agree, isn’t mass murder pretty much illegal and punishable by death in most states and if not death life imprisonment?

              What part of first degree murder needs changed?

              1. Nothing. But laws that let people easily engage in mass killing need to be changed.

                1. What laws let people easily mass murder?

                  1. I guess I should say which additional law is needed

                  2. Laws that let people have weapons that make it easy to murder sixty people within a few minutes from a high vantage point. Or to murder nine even with a “good guy with a gun” responding within 32 seconds.

                    1. You mean 2A? its not a law its the constitution.

                      See 2A also allows you to defend yourself from multiple assailants. You don’t need a semi-automatic weapon to kill a deer but you do need it when lets say even a modest sized group comes to harm you and burn down your house or business. An AR-15 is actually excellent for that which is why its so popular.

                      You do realize fully automatic weapons are already illegal? Right

                    2. You mean 2A? its not a law its the constitution. Yeah, that’s the law I am talking about, it needs to be changed.

                      I do realize fully automatic weapons are illegal (for now) and also that it doesn’t make much difference since semi-automatic weapons have caused a great deal of damage.

                      So how many shooting victims are worth you having your fantasy of mowing down a liberal mob with your AR? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Did I reach the number yet?

                    3. You do know that fewer people are killed by “assault weapons”–or guns of any kind–than are killed by alcohol, right?. So how many deaths are you willing to tolerate for the sake of indulging those people for value the right to get a buzz on over the lives of their fellow citizens? Or do you believe the pleasure of those who enjoy alcohol is simply more deserving of validation than the pleasure of those who enjoy owning and shooting AR-15s?

                  3. You let him hijack the discussion to change the subject.

                2. No they don’t because actual mass killings are so rare as to be socially negligible. The number of people saved by legal defensive use of weapons far, far outweighs the number lost to illegal use.

                  1. You should have gone to the Newtown funerals and been like: it’s okay, your kids life was socially negligible.

                    1. And you should go to the Warsaw ghettos and say that all those deaths were okay because at least they were unarmed when they were hauled off to the concentration camps.

                      See? Two can play that game. It’s a stupid game, though, because it’s about emotion and blame rather than rationality. Everything we do has costs and benefits. Do you go apologize to every mother who loses a child in a car accident just because we don’t have a 10 mph speed limit? No, because we all recognize that the convenience of getting from A to B in a reasonable amount of time is worth the collective risk of a highly predictable number of deaths per mile. That same logic applies to weapons. They save more lives than they cost. That doesn’t make the costs any less tragic but reason and evidence dictate the decision. Not unfounded fear and irrational emotion.

                    2. Two can’t play that game because your comparison is erroneous. One was a society that’s decided to affirmatively mass murder Jews. The other was a society that decided random mass murder was the price of freedom and immediately disregards human life by using some immoral cost-best benefit analysis.

                      None of these societies grappled with how it embraced or ignored killing or weapons of war.

                      America is the most armed country in the world, and people still die in scores at random due to those weapons. You can’t hold a gun constantly to defend yourself. Even if you can: it doesn’t matter. 60 dead in Vegas, no matter how many in the crowd had guns it wouldn’t matter. Nine dead in Dayton. Guy with a gun responded in 32 seconds. Still nine dead.

                      We think guns are more important than people here. It’s not okay.

                    3. Not unfounded fear and irrational emotion.

                      Also: this is such a stupid argument. Humans are emotional creatures. Emotions like live and grief are real…and we constantly disregard them in service of guns and a pretend rationality.

                      If you can’t understand the importance of emotions here…you are profoundly broken and I feel very sorry for you.

                    4. “You should have gone to the Newtown funerals and been like: it’s okay, your kids life was socially negligible.”

                      “If you can’t understand the importance of emotions here…you are profoundly broken and I feel very sorry for you”

                      If a child dies due to a one in a million reaction to a vaccine, is the parent’s very real emotional reaction valid evidence against vaccination? Or should we do an unemotional examination of the number of deaths likely to result from vaccinating or not?

                    5. Vaccinations are designed to save lives not take them away. Gun nuts cannot grapple with the simple fact that they are okay sacrificing lives to maintain the ability to kill people in an efficient manner:

                    6. Guns are designed to defend lives not take them away. Hoplophobes cannot grapple with the simple fact that they are okay sacrificing lives to prevent people from defending themselves effectively.

                      See? We can recite stupid talking points, or have an intelligent conversation. Your choice.

            2. You’re just assuming we’re pretending to care instead of actually caring because you apparently view empathy as completely transactional: it only exists if you can gain something from it.

              Also “harassing” people is a funny way of saying not letting people have weapons of war designed for mass killings.

      2. Speaking of cop violence, mass shootings, and prosaic criminal murder, economists study these things via statistics, and mass shootings and wrongful police murders don’t even show up on radar vs. normal murders.

        The point being, for statistical outcomes analyses, one shouldn’t throw out the vast majority of benefit to address statistically much smaller issues.

        Or else you get this: hooray, police murders were down 12 last year, but other murders up 1200.

        1. Wow. What a comfort to Newtown, Las Vegas, Parkland, El Paso etc. Statistical blips. Why even care?

          1. Yes, exactly. You don’t sacrifice 1,200 lives to save 12, not if you actually care about saving lives.

            You should always be very, very careful when instituting policies to deal with rare events, because it’s absurdly easy for them to fail any rational cost/benefit analysis.

            1. Usually the benefits go to the people pushing the laws and the costs are borne by others who they’ve learned to ignore.

              1. The benefit of not being murdered and the cost is borne by people who have less ability to murder. Wow what a tricky moral conundrum.

                1. This is an oversimplification. The benefit of the 12 people who were already murdered is not to be murdered. But they’re already dead. The people who push for the change in the laws are not the 12 people who died. They’re other people. They push these laws for a lot of reasons. One is because they want to prevent the death of people in the future. Another might be because they want a hobby and stopping murder seems like an uncontroversial hobby.

                  The problem is that we live in a society with finite resources. That includes political resources. If you believe it is moral to suppress human suffering (as most of us do) you also must recognize that prioritizing stopping suffering X will lead to resource shifts from Y. If X is not as large a source of human suffering as Y, reallocating those resources is not just inefficient, it’s immoral. So why would people who are made aware of these statistics continue to support X? Because at some point their identity or, just as likely, financial well-being depends on it. And that person is no longer advocating for X to prevent human suffering generally. They are advocating X to increase their personal well-being. That’s a major problem.

                  I do care about mass shootings. I try to care about it proportionately. Do you think proportionality is irrelevant? Do you disagree with the assertion? In your view are police murders or mass murders significant percentages of overall murders?

            2. So you don’t care and are a bad person got it. Thanks for confirming it yet again.

    2. Also is Jimmy the Dane going to come by and accuse Ben of using murdered people as props?

      1. Are you still butt hurt by the fact I pointed out that you were using dead kids as a political prop to forward gun control?

        1. No. I’m butt hurt by the fact that you have zero empathy or ability to understand the suffering of other humans. The only thing you pointed out is that shooting deaths make me sad and you indifferent. Good job.

          1. No I just realize shooting are more complex then “hey look here is a dead kid….if you don’t do what I want done I am going to make it seem like you don’t care there are dead kids….”

  7. “perspective of reformism, it’s a disaster.”

    Its a feature of “reformism” as currently imagined by the left.. An inevitable result.

  8. You presume, Professor, that criminal justice reformers are interested in an objectively safe society.

    I challenge your presumption, and suggest that modern criminal justice reformers believe that society is inherently corrupt (“racist”) and that objective notions of safety (“less violent crime”) are merely manifestations of racism.

    After all, the poor, inner-city neighborhoods where so many non-whites live have long been dangerous places. Why shouldn’t the wealthy, suburban, white enclaves experience the same?

    That’s reform, Democrat style.

  9. My problem with the criminal justice reform folks is that they consider having lots of people in prison to be an injustice in and of itself.

    If someone is in jail for something that shouldn’t be a crime (drugs being the biggie), that’s wrong. If someone is in jail when they were railroaded, pressured into pleading guilty under threat of a pile of duplicate charges, or exonerating evidence was ignored, that’s also wrong. But if someone is in jail for violating someone else’s rights, and received a proper defense, that’s the proper result. (Short of the criminal being killed by his victim during the attempted crime, or chickening out).

    1. They also use the same logic to conclude that having a disproportionate number of minorities in prison is inherently unjust, even if it is an accurate reflection of crime rates.

      1. It’s the false disparate outcome argument. It’s not all minorities its just one actually. Nobody is complaining about the incarceration rate of Asians.

        That’s because the incarceration rate accurately reflects the low Asian crime rate.

        Same with women vs men.

  10. And it’s happening right when reformers are making some gains, such as bail reform, and are convincing people that police need to be held more accountable. This allows people to argue that reforms, or contemplated reforms, are the cause of the increase.

    Many reformers are not practically minded people. Anybody with practical experience knows that you can’t just plop your preferred policy in place and wait for the gains. Moving from A to B is a lot of work.

  11. It really is important to remember that, whatever its connotations, all “reform” denotes is “change”. And “change” isn’t inherently always for the better.

  12. We should ban guns because the police can protect you, except that they are racist and we should defund them.

    At some point, do you think “police reformers” will discover that gun and drug laws were designed to target minorities, and actually work to decriminalize minor drug offenses and (heaven forbid) allow minorities to carry for self defense in blue states (as opposed to just the rich white and well connected). The best way to “defund the police” is to legalize the constitution.

  13. Not prosecuting crimes, not policing will lead to more crime. Duh!!!

    And where is this rise happening? Here is a hint not in the country. Make your bed you get to lay in it.

    Who would of guessed?

    1. Typical knee-jerk reaction from the pro-incarceration crowd.

      The threat of jail and prosecution has not in any way stopped people from putting drugs in their veins.

      1. So we’re just discussing drugs? Seems to be a little broader

        1. “Mandatory sentencing guidelines dropped crime by 40%.”

          Except for the part where crime dropped throughout the developed world in the 1990s. There are better explanations than sentencing guidelines, including demographics (aging population) and economics (labor force changes and poverty changes). Maybe its more guns and legalized CCW (“More Guns Less Crime”). Or legal abortion, we have that school of thought too! Of course, global temperature, CO2, and sulfur dioxide emissions also are correlated with declines in crime.

          I lean towards demographics, but I am am strongly sympathetic to the “we have no fucking clue” crowd, which are the only honest people left in my opinion.

          1. wrong place for that comment, ugh

      2. It obviously hasn’t deterred those who continue to put drugs into their veins. But, equally obviously, it has deterred those who don’t put drugs into the veins, and who you never hear of (because they aren’t putting drugs in their veins, duh).

        Similarly, it hasn’t deterred those who go around robbing and killing their fellow citizens, but I’m willing to bet there are at least a few who are deterred from robbery and murder by the threat of imprisonment, or who refrain from robbing and killing quite as often as they might otherwise do.

  14. I would support criminal justice reform put forth by lawyers more, if it held their occupational brethren accountable in some way for spurious and false prosecutions.

  15. Therefore, it is imperative that people who believe in criminal justice/police reform take the increase in crime seriously.

    Of course it is. And I’d like to see evidence that they don’t before just accepting that.

    But the assumption here is that it is reforms that have caused the increase, and that the old-fashioned way of doing things will drive crime back down.

    1. The Democrat Party calls it reform. It is a propaganda lie to explode crime, and to explode public employee employment. CJ Reform is a total scam to enrich the Democrat supporter. Minorities keep voting their mortal enemies, inexplicably. They bear the biggest burden of poverty and of suffering.

  16. A complete list of factors that will return violent crime to previous levels:

    1. End of the pandemic.

  17. “Mandatory sentencing guidelines dropped crime by 40%.”

    Except for the part where crime dropped throughout the developed world in the 1990s. There are better explanations than sentencing guidelines, including demographics (aging population) and economics (labor force changes and poverty changes). Maybe its more guns and legalized CCW (“More Guns Less Crime”). Or legal abortion, we have that school of thought too! Of course, global temperature, CO2, and sulfur dioxide emissions also are correlated with declines in crime.

    I lean towards demographics, but I am am strongly sympathetic to the “we have no fucking clue” crowd, which are the only honest people left in my opinion.

    1. All important changes are multi-factorial. To your list, please, add, video addiction and the obesity epidemic. Too fat to attack anyone. Drops in air lead levels is a factor in the lower crime rate.

      The high incarceration rate proved that incapacitation is the only value of the criminal law. A 3% decarceration resulted in a 15% increase in murder, immediately, showing the immediate effect of incarceration. All the other long term trends got even stronger in the direction of lowering crime, but decarceration killed 100’s of people a city, immediately. Now we have 40% and 100% jumps in murder.

      1. “All important changes are multi-factorial.”

        Then don’t say “X caused 40% decrease” you fucking hack.

      2. “multi-factorial”: lol, if I add enough “factors” to any regression, the explanatory powers become 100%.

        lmao

        there is no scientific basis for this assertion: “All the other long term trends got even stronger in the direction of lowering crime, but decarceration killed 100’s of people a city, immediately”

        There are simply too many things changing at ones, there is not enough data to attribute it to any one factor.

        In Baltimore in 2014, for example we had riots and at the same time the legislature implemented gun control (handgun permits) and the state was also in the middle of an opiod crisis. I can blame the 35% increase in homicide on gun control, the police stepping back, or drug wars.

        If you were honest you would say “i have no idea” what caused the 35%. spike.

        In addition, Baltimore and New Orleans have been two of the most violent cities in the USA since record keeping, at least the 1800s. For sure since 1968 when the Feds started tallying. How do you explain the widely varying, persistent, crime stats across cities?

        What if its just culture, some cities / towns are more prone to settle scores with violence rather than lawsuits?

  18. “If the huge and unprecedented increase in violent crime last year…”

    What is the huge and unprecedented increase in violent crime last year?

    1. This is from a story in the Washington Post a few weeks ago about the rise in homicides in 2020:

      The grim body count isn’t quite over yet, but the data collected so far is stark — a 20.9 percent increase in killings nationwide, in the first nine months of the year, according to the FBI.

      ….Experts agree the pandemic has played a huge role in the rise in killings, but it has also probably contributed to a significant decrease in nonviolent crimes, which the FBI data shows fell by more than 8 percent in the first nine months of the year, possibly because there were fewer people on the street, fewer stores open for business and fewer crimes of opportunity available.

      A huge rise in the murder rate is obviously bad news, but it’s paradoxically good news too. The trendline for national crime rates never changes by more than a few percentage points a year, which means that a 20.9% increase is plainly a huge outlier. Maybe it was prompted by the George Floyd protests. Maybe it was prompted by the pandemic. But whatever it was, there’s no chance that it represents a genuine change in long-term crime trends. This is confirmed by the fact that nonviolent crime was down and—if I remember this correctly—that violent crime other than murder was also down (or at most very slightly up.)

      Crime rates have been unusually spiky over the past few years, and it’s hard to extract much of a signal from all the noise. We need to figure out why the murder rate is up, but we should also expect that in 2021 it will probably go right back down.

      https://jabberwocking.com/the-murder-rate-is-up-sort-of/

      1. “This is from a story in the Washington Post a few weeks ago about the rise in homicides in 2020…”

        I am aware of the precedented increase in homicides in 2020, as it’s been documented here. I was asking after the “unprecedented” increase in “violent crime last year”. The link he includes (like the one you sent) is about homicide. Not all violent crimes are homicides. (In any event, not every increase or “outlier” is unprecedented.)

  19. It would be too bad if we kept “asset forfeiture,” “qualified immunity,” and other bad policies in the name of fighting the rising crime wave. I don’t think we’re having a crime wave because cops can’t steal or because bent cops are accountable to the courts.

    A better approach would be to repress *all* rioters, basically to protect (say) private businesses and public buildings in flyover country and the West Coast as just as worthy of protection as the federal Capitol.

  20. This is the second time when Professor Bernstein tries to imply an overall large increase in violent crime, whereas in reality overall crime is up very little. Murders are up a lot. Arson is up a lot. Most other forms of violent crime are actually down this year.

    We know why arson was way up in 2020. Without getting into a debate about the merits of the BLM protests and accompanying violence and property damage, I think it’s safe to say that the increase in arson has an obvious cause that has nothing to do with criminal justice reform.

    So this leaves us to try and understand what’s driving the increase in murder rate. Professor Bernstein’s implication that it has something to do with criminal justice reform seems lacking here as well. Unless efforts like bail reform or removing mandatory minimums were somehow disproportionately affecting murderers, you’d expect if they were responsible for increased murders they would drive other forms at crime as well, but in many cases those other crime rates are moving down rather than up. And, just as with attempts to blame the increase in murder rate on the pandemic doesn’t really match the timeline, the same is true for criminal justice reform: murder rates started spiking dramatically in the summer, but there was no watershed moment of criminal justice reform in mid-2020, and whereas the murder rate has risen in almost every big city across the country, criminal justice reforms are a patchwork with incredible variance in different places.

    Bottom line, this whole post feels pretty dishonest: overall violent crime rates are not up significantly, and there’s no obvious connection to criminal justice reform efforts. Yet, Professor Bernstein attempts to provocatively link the two without even an attempt to identify any causality.

    1. “whereas in reality overall crime is up very little.”

      Reported crime, correct?

      Murder rates are highly reliable. Dead bodies usually get reported.

      Arsons too, other than tiny fires. Hard to hide firetrucks.

      Other crimes are totally dependent on reporting. Not very reliable.

      1. The law of large numbers helps us here. Sure, any individual crime may or may not be reported but when we look at the aggregate from year to year to year we’d expect the trends to be meaningful. As evidence of this, overall crime rates are relatively stable instead of randomly fluctuating from year to year which is what you’d expect if they had large error bars around them.

        1. Why should we expect 2020 to be the same as other years in terms of reporting rates? It is not hard at all to find stories about people who called 911, only to be told that police were busy responding to riots and would not be dispatched elsewhere unless someone’s life was in danger. Saying “your crime doesn’t matter” is a very effective way to reduce the reporting rate.

          1. If you want to try to convince yourself that overall crime was up despite any data to support this, feel free I guess. You are welcome to whatever confirmation bias floats your boat and since it has nothing to do with data one way or the other we’re not going to be able to have a productive conversation about it.

            But EVEN IF overall crime was up as much as murder, it still almost certainly has nothing to do with criminal justice reform for the same reasons that my original comment explains why the murder rate doesn’t seem to have anything to do with criminal justice reform. Personally, I think it’s more productive to try to figure out why the murder rate actually increased and what we ought to do about it.

  21. If you’re going to talk about the violent crime and murder rate, unfortunately, you’re going to need to talk about the African American murder rate, and address the root causes here.

    The root cause here, is ultimately the endemic single-parent household, in combination with the limited “first step” employment opportunities available. There is a historical basis for what happened here.

    1. A series of welfare policies that made it more profitable for a single mother to be unwed, than to be married. This ultimately started in the 60’s. This was a gradual, but devastating social effect. The additional stability and advancement that a two parent household can bring to children cannot be understated. However, a series of choices by liberal welfare policies in the 60’s had a perverse effect. It was more “profitable” for a single mother to be unwed, than wed. If she was to wed, her welfare benefits would drop dramatically. It was a short term gain. But the long term damage to childrens upbringings was very large.

    2. The destruction of the African American working class, especially exacerbated by illegal labor. It may be hard to believe, but at one point in the 1960’s, African Americans had a higher % of people in the labor force than Whites. But a series of illegal immigrant migrations effectively undercut them on wages. This, coupled with other social policies, effectively cut many of them out of the “provider” status as a two-parent household

    3. High minimum wages. These effectively kept poor African Americans out of the entry-level jobs that would’ve provided good habits, work history, and some pay. Instead, a life of “crime” became the only option for many.

    1. Basically those who commit the crime are responsible. Society is not responsible.

      It’s not a police problem and its not a race problem.

      I’ll add school choice as a way out. I doubt blacks who have highly marketable skills, doctors, lawyers, engineers are having a problem.

      HS drop outs the outlook is not so great.

      1. Ah, but maybe race is part of the problem.

        Do you think that it is just coincidence that blacks have, for decades upon decades, consistently punched well above their weight in category after category of social dysfunction?

        Those who refuse to ask the foregoing question and engage in serious, comprehensive dialogue regarding the same are not interested in having a conversation about race.

        1. Ok. You asked the question. So why don’t you answer it? What are you saying? Why is it that you think “blacks have, for decades upon decades, consistently punched well above their weight in category after category of social dysfunction?”

          Why do people who bring up these arguments speak so cryptically. I’m “interested in having a conversation about race”, and specifically hearing what you think. So dive in, chief.

          1. Perhaps you doubt whether blacks actually have punched well above their weight when it comes to the likelihood of, for example, committing crimes of inter-racial violence or the likelihood of abortion or being raised in a single parent household?

            1. I’m willing to take for granted your assertion. So what “serious, comprehensive dialogue” do you want, now that you’ve caught the car? You asked for it. Speak.

              1. 1.Let’s start with asking why shouldn’t each and every individual should be held accountable for her actions and that there should be no mulligans on account of her race? If a black person commits an assault, why should we continue to indulge the proposition that it is really not the entire fault of the black person at issue, but rather, systemic racism.

                2. Why not go out of our way to emphasize that the terms “racism” and “systemic racism” are not a one-way street?

                1. 1. Setting aside fringe views that are still outside the Overton window, who, exactly, is saying that assault should be decriminalized so long as it is committed by black people? When I ordinarily hear discussions about systematic racism, it’s not in the context of “systematic racism caused this black man to commit assault, robbing him of agency”. It’s ordinarily in the context of a black person being murdered by law enforcement. A distant second would be people responding to assertions, like yours, that black people commit more crimes, and responding with maybe that has something to do with racial inequality imbedded in the system. That doesn’t mean black people lack agency and should not be punished for crimes. But I can convict a person of stealing groceries while simultaneously wondering if there maybe is a better way to organize the affairs of humans such that fewer people need to steal groceries in the first place.

                  2. Your idea for a “comprehensive dialogue” on race is that we should “go out of our way to emphasize that the terms ‘racism’ and ‘systematic racism’ are not a one-way street?” Is that all you wanted? Was to say that you think people should “emphasize” that racism and systematic racism are a two-way street? Because if so, it’s pretty fucking weird that the only way you know how to articulate that meek point is to say that black people “consistently punched well above their weight in category after category of social dysfunction”.

                  Let’s get to the heart of things. If black people “consistently punched well above their weight in category after category of social dysfunction” there can be only one of two explanations. First is that this result has something to do with black pigmentation in skin, that is black consistency in punching above their weight in social dysfunction is caused by their blackness. The other is that it has nothing to do with their blackness. Which of these do you think best explains the phenomenon, namely that, in your view, black people consistently punch above their weight class in social dysfunction)?

                  1. What are the fringe views that you think should be set aside? Should they be set aside because they are outside the Overton window or because they have no merit whatsoever?

                    I just do not buy the proposition that discussion of racism, systemic racism and structural racism in the justice system is limited to the context of police killings of black people. To wit, in the words of that paragon of probity, Lizzie Warren, “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: its racist and I mean front to back.”

                    Police murder of black people is extremely rare as has been documented by Heather McDonald. Thus, the notion that the subject of systemic racism is only broached or usually initiated in the context of police murders of negroes is a dog that won’t hunt.

                    One hears or reads very little, if any, assertions from the likes of Al Sharpton, Joy Reid, Eric Michael Dyson, Eddie Glaude, Jason Johnson, Yamiche Alcindor, Nicole Wallace, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Michelle Goldberg that, “of course, each and every black individual has agency and we should hold all black people accountable for their crimes, and that each and every black person should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and there should not be any claims emanating from those who seek to reform the judicial system that black people should be given a pass or a break.”

                    In fact, systemic racism is the reason cited by many urban district attorneys for the implementation of their policies to (1) abolish cash bail – even for violent felons; (2) refuse to prosecute shop-lifting and other “petty” property crimes; and (3) refuse to prosecute simple assault charges, including “knock-out” escapades so popular with negro youth.

                    In the real world, racism is not a one-way street as manifested by the facts that black people are far more likely than white people to perpetrate crimes of inter-racial violence. Life is not the negro being constantly abused, assaulted, battered, besieged, and mistreated by whitey. The world is not a stage whereupon the negro is denied any roles in the play by whitey.

                    Having a serious conversation about race means black people examining why there should be any affirmative action, quotas, or set-asides because one is black.

                    Having a serious conversation about race means black people examining why the country, as a whole, should be celebrating “black history.”

                    Having a serious conversation about race means black people examining why so many black babies are aborted.

                    Having a serious conversation about race means black people examining why so many black children are raised in single parent homes.

                    Having a serious conversation about race means black people examining why some in their community continually insist upon reparations while ignoring the trillions that have been transferred to black people by whitey, not as a function of free and voluntary exchange, but, rather, by coercion.

                    Having a serious conversation about race means black people examining why it is fine to celebrate black association while condemning white association.

                    Yes, let us get to the heart of the matter.

        2. If we look back to decades before Democrats decided to basically build a plantation to keep Black people in, do we see that same disparity in crime rate or other social problems? I think not. We have to be open to considering whether Democrats have built a systemically racist mechanism to keep a group beholden to them, working to prevent them from escaping poverty and single-parent families.

    2. 1. Could you be specific as to which policy “made it more profitable for a single mother to be unwed, than to be married”? I’m wondering which statute you had in mind, precisely. Is this a TANF/AFDC argument?

      2. Could you be more specific about when you contend this undercutting started, continued, and ended (if at all)?

      3. What’s the factual-basis for this assertion? I’m asking about the effect of minimum wages unique to black people.

      1. To start with…

        The 1980-2000 immigrant influx, therefore, generally ‘explains’ about 20 to 60 percent of the decline in wages, 25 percent of the decline in employment, and about 10 percent of the rise in incarceration rates among blacks with a high school education or less.

        https://www.nber.org/digest/may07/effects-immigration-african-american-employment-and-incarceration

        1. Is that your answer to 2? 1980-2000? Do you think the destruction stopped in 2000 or do you think it continued. If continued, could you tell me if you think it is continuing today and, if not, when that period ended.

  22. For those that remember New York City in the early 90’s, no one wants to go back to those times. Well maybe liberals do because they don’t have to live in crime ridden neighborhood, but no one else wants to live in that world again.

Please to post comments