Let us examine a few basics of attaining our desires. First
off let us accept the obvious, that all crime can be eliminated
by eliminating all laws. That is a given.
The other side of that coin is that crime increases when
laws are passed creating new crimes. There is no question that
if turning right on red is made illegal tomorrow then the case
load in traffic court will increase with these new crimes. This
is a trivial observation.
The observation that so many will not admit is that
activities thought "evil" and made crimes have the consequence of
increasing the crime rate and all of its associated problems. It
matters not how evil the crime, people convicted of it go to
jail. When they get out they have a hard time getting a decent
job if all all and are dependent upon welfare. When the impact
of these crimes hit a particular class of people then that class
goes down hill economically.
For example, it is a "good thing" to be against the "evil"
of drugs but every law the creates a drug related crime causes an
increased crime rate, clogs the court system and fills the
prisons. The 10,000% markup on drugs causes the secondary crimes
of muggings, thefts, murders and whatever. You may or may not
agree drugs should be illegal but there is no denying making them
illegal is a different type of problem than having them legal.
Added to that when we have prison time for these legal
crimes the marginally employable become unemployable because of
the prison time. They have difficulty supporting themselves.
They certainly can not support a family. The entire class sinks
in economic level. Drugs are still around at the same price so
more crimes are required to raise the same amount of money to pay
for them and the cycle gets worse.
Which is worse, legal or illegal drugs, is something upon
which we have not experimented to find out. However, it is clear
the penalties for having drugs illegal are not insignificant and
certainly could be greater than having them legal.
But drug laws alone are not my point. Car-jacking is soon
to be a federal crime. What purpose would this serve other than
to add to the population of federal prisons? What is the purpose
of a "three strikes and your out law" other than to increase that
population?
Whether you like the idea or not the consequences of making
more crimes is to make more criminals.
Deterrence is an old card played by everyone and it does not
apply. I can find equally incogent arguments on both sides as to
the value of deterrence. However creating a crime is not a
deterrent.
Let me ask you, do you really believe those who are into
car-jacking have the slightest idea there is a crime bill in
Congress much less the slightest idea it has a provision on
car-jacking? And if you can fine a couple that do can you
imagine one of them giving a damn?
As Leonard Bernstein might have written today ...
I'm deterred, I deterred,Any law has to be taken in context of the consequences of making an activity illegal as well as the desirability of actually making it illegal as both sides agree the present level and type of punishment is not a deterrence to the violation of any law. Thus every law we pass is merely an increase in the number of criminals. Is this not contrary to what we are all interested in?
I'm so damned deterred
President Clinton, Krup You!