Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Actual Violence Reduction Is An Orphan

     Say there was program with an actual track record in reducing big-city violence.  Not a new restriction on firearms, not a "stop and frisk" policy skirting the Fourth Amendment, not a massive increase in police boots on the ground or more midnight basketball--

     You'd think the high-profile "gun violence prevention" groups would be all in favor of it, right?


     "Not our lane," says the Brady Campaign.  At Bloomberg's "Everytown For Gun Safety," home of the big wallet, "We're focused on...how to improve the laws."  The same program was talked about offstage during the most recent series of Executive Branch pushes for gun restrictions...but mention of it never passed Presidential or Vice-Presidential lips.

     Pro Publica -- dependably left-leaning -- covered this last Fall.  Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has been beating the gun control drum pretty hard, has never breathed a word about it.

     I don't know, maybe it's not much of an idea -- but a program that focuses not on the gun nor punishment after the crime, but on the men mostly likely to become killer or victim, sounds like it might have some merit; given the groups that don't think enough of it to pony up a single thin dime or ten seconds in a speech, it sure seems to me it's worth looking at.

     What if there was a way to reduce the inner-city death rate and nobody cared? Yeah, yeah, Pro Publica, sack'o'pinkos, etc., and no doubt theirs is a very favorable reading of the data; but even a blind sow finds an occasional ear of corn.


Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

It frustrates me no end that programs like Ceasefire can demonstrably effect change for the better, but that they are given short shrift by our political "leaders" because they don't fit the narrative.

I mean, just look at New York City -- Bill de Blasio and his deliberate application of RoundUp to the "Broken Windows policing" crop sown and gently tended by his two predecessors.

It's as if progressive politicians want us at each other's throats. Say...

Jay Dee said...

As I recall the definition of a politician is someone who rocks the boat then tells us only he can save us from the storm.

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember that Project Exile worked wonders.
Get caught with a gun, and the feds put you away for 5 years.

The violence reductions were great, but there was a disparate racial impact.

So only an idiot like Trump would suggest bringing back.

Roberta X said...

Anon 4:21, the program in the article I liked to has a strong element of prevention. Oh, there was "stick" as well as "carrot," but the idea was to chivvy and kick at least some of the most at-risk (to others and themselves) types back to a closer approximation of the straight & narrow before locking them up and losing the key became a desirable option.

Project Exile attempted deterrence though venue-shopping -- typically, shifting what were often relatively minor firearms offenses to federal court. It "succeeded" in removing offenders to what amounted to a finishing school of crime, finding five years of society being free of the bad 'un to be an okay tradeoff; I am not so sure about that.

If you're okay with five years in Federal prison for getting caught on that little stretch of interstate that zips across the Maryland panhandle while carrying a type of gun or in a manner legal in states on either side but not Maryland, then Project Exile might be right for you. It was often applied in a racist manner as well -- if prosecutors thought you were a baaad dude, you got charged in Federal court; if they felt you were redeemable-but-chargeable, you faced State judges, and no mandatory minimums. In practice, there was a good correlation between darkness of complexion the likelihood of Federal case.

As for Mr. Trump, I am unwilling to debate his relative intelligence or lack thereof; he is, however, a kind of cut-rate fascist, and as such, I am not at all surprised to learn he favors Project Exile and similar programs. In case you have failed to notice, I am an anarchist with libertarian leanings and from my perspective, the only differences between Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton is that one is a little better at working a crowd and the other promises slightly worse picks for the Supreme Court. In my judgement, if those two were the only Presidential options on the November ballot, it'd be a pair of shit sandwiches with different condiments. I will not be voting for either one and I encourage you to do likewise.