Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tina Trent's avatar

The decline in crime that began around the middish 90s isn't as mysterious as some say. We first used DNA to prosecute a rape in Orlando in 1988; states soon passed laws to create DNA databases, and we became much better at taking prolific, stranger sex offenders off the streets. This technological advancement led to another insight: a small number of extremely prolific offenders were responsible for huge percentages of crimes, and they were more ecumenical about the types of crimes they committed than previously known. Profiling even took a hit when it was discovered that minority serial killers are over-represented, not under-represented. DNA also helped with murder cases and gang-busting. With newfound confidence in accuracy, we passed new laws to keep prolific offenders of all types behind bars, and for longer. Two or three strikes laws, 80% sentence served, truth in sentencing. Unfortunately, many judges broke these laws (and should have been disbarred and arrested). Soros took over our best criminal justice programs (such as at John Jay) and turned them into radical training camps. His Prosecutor's Project churned out anti-incarceration prosecutors, and his propaganda nonprofits helped roll back good laws we passed in the states in the 90s. But we had removed a few generations of the prolific offenders by that time and broke some cycles of exposing these men to younger potential offenders, so the oughts and even early teens remained fairly low. Then Obama, Holder, and Elena Kagan weaponized the feds against police, fomented racial tensions, and here we are again. Only with fewer police who can do much less to catch criminals and prosecutors who won't prosecute.

Expand full comment
PE Bird's avatar

Interesting. People want to live where they have a chance to live.

Expand full comment
63 more comments...

No posts