⭠ Return to thread

Bazelon is a skillful linguist who uses words to slant the story her way while misleading readers.

Let's examine some points quickly and rebut them:

She cites a SINGLE criminologist as the basis for her assertions - what about the whole criminological community? Is there a consensus? Or sharp disagreements?

She sets up a straw man argument about the "typical" criminal, I mean poor soul, who is the grist for the media mill: "An individual—usually a man with dark skin—did something horrific to an innocent victim—usually an attractive white woman, an elderly person, or worst of all, a child." Unfortunately many criminals are persons of color. But their victims? Overwhelmingly - 90%+ -persons of color themselves.

Another straw man: "Let loose, this marauding psychopath then wreaked havoc that was all too foreseeable." Some truth to this, but no one calls these criminals "psychos" - we realize that most criminals are rational and can decide for themselves whether they will commit a crime or not.

Look at the facts: When we enforced long sentences, crime went down. Even when the demographics favored an increase in crime due to the increase in poor young men who often are criminals, crime stayed down. It was only when we got soft on crime when it started to increase.

Bazleon should be ashamed of herself but is incapable of that. Moreover, a significant number of crimes is committed by persons who, while not "pychos" as she would try to call them, still need extensive mental health treatment. But why don't they get it? Because extremists such as Bazleon closed the mental hospitals and threw the patients on the streets without care in the name of supporting their rights. And it is impossible to force them into treatment even when they clearly need it.

Fact is, it is Bazleon and her fellow travelers who have made this problem the crisis it is and then have the gall to blame racism, incarceration, and punishment the reasons for the increase in crime.

Expand full comment