Saint of the Day & Editorial on Congressional Prison Reform

Today is the Feast Day of St. Cloud, Confessor, according to the traditional Lives of the Saints by Fr. Alban Butler, read about this Saint at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lots/lots281.htm

Reading about these saints regulalry is a wonderful daily reflection.

Editorial on Congressional Prison Reform

The must-read article in their current newsletter by the president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation is entitled : Congressional Prison Reform = Jail Break , (page 2), read at https://www.cjlf.org/publications/newsletters/currentAdvisory.pdf

Reducing Sentences Increases Crime

Today is the Feast Day of St. Augustine of Hippo, according to the traditional Lives of the Saints by Fr. Alban Butler, read about this Saint at http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lots/lots270.htm 

It is also the Feast Day of the great criminal saint, St. Moses the Black, read about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_the_Black

Reducing Sentences Increases Crime

Continuing along its ill-informed path to change the criminal justice system, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, this latest California measure—in a time of rehabilitation programs largely failing across the board (see our post at https://catholiceye.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/evaluation-of-reentry-programs-3/

—all that is accomplished is increasing criminals on the streets.

Tough on crime measures reduce crime, soft on crime measures increase it.

An excerpt.

California’s approach to crime and punishment is complicated enough that a state watchdog agency once referred to it as a “chaotic labyrinth of laws with no cohesive philosophy or strategy.”

The penal code covers thousands of different offenses, each carrying three terms of varying lengths that may be applied depending on mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Convictions for multiple charges can be served concurrently or consecutively, while hundreds of possible enhancements sometimes add more time to an inmate’s sentence than the underlying crime.

Lawmakers are moving to change that this month with Senate Bill 1279, which would largely limit the maximum term of imprisonment for felony convictions to twice the length of the base term. California adopted a similar cap in 1976, according to a legislative analysis, but it was ultimately repealed in 1997, after more and more exceptions were added to the law.

Supporters say SB 1279, which is awaiting a vote in the Assembly after passing the Senate in May, will “refine” California’s complex approach to sentencing, providing a greater balance between felonies and enhancements. Sen. Steven Bradford, a Gardena Democrat who is carrying the measure, said in a written statement that decades of a “tough on crime” mentality devastated communities of color in the state.

“Until we can prove that longer sentences are an effective deterrent to crime and increase public safety, there is absolutely no reason we should dole out extreme and harsh sentences for all cases, which research has widely proven to disproportionately impact black and brown people,” he said.

But law enforcement groups are raising alarm that the bill imposes an arbitrary cap, removing a judge’s ability to sentence someone appropriately for their crimes.

Sean Hoffman, director of legislation for the California District Attorneys Association, pointed to the two men who have been charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths in the 2016 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland. They are set to go to trial next year, after a judge rejected a plea deal in which they would have been sentenced to nine years and six years, respectively, in county jail.

If convicted of all 36 counts, the two men face up to 39 years in state prison — a maximum term of four years for the principal offense, and one additional year, or a third of the middle term for involuntary manslaughter, for each of the remaining 35 charges. Under SB 1279, the limit would be eight years.

“At some point, you will have certain crimes that go unpunished or certain victims who don’t receive justice,” Hoffman said.

Retrieved August 22, 2018 from https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article217041010.html

Needle Exchange Programs

Costa Mesa, acting intelligently, has banned these programs, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

It is against common sense to provide addicts the means to continue their addiction.

An excerpt.

Needle-exchange programs are now banned in Costa Mesa — for the time being, at least — after the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance Tuesday prohibiting the establishment and operation of such services anywhere in the city.

The vote is meant to give city staff additional time to study issues related to such programs and examine potential new regulations governing where and how they can operate.

The moratorium is effective for 45 days, but can be extended with a future council vote.

“The first thing we have to do is identify, A, whether there’s a problem and, B, if there is a problem, what’s the scope of the problem and … what are some possible solutions,” Councilman John Stephens said.

The urgency ordinance is part of Costa Mesa’s double-barreled response to a California Department of Public Health decision last week to OK a proposal from the Orange County Needle Exchange Program to distribute syringes and other supplies in the city’s Westside, as well as in parts of Anaheim, Orange and Santa Ana, for the next two years.

The council also voted last week to join Orange County in a lawsuit seeking to stop the mobile needle-exchange service, which would operate in Costa Mesa on West 17th Street between Whittier Avenue and the city boundary from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Wednesdays and Sundays.

Supporters of such programs say they are intended to help prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C among intravenous drug users by providing clean needles. But city officials say the proposed operating area in Costa Mesa is inappropriate, especially given its proximity to homes, businesses and schools.

After learning of the proposal earlier this year, Costa Mesa police, city staff and council members sent letters and made comments detailing their concerns that the program could attract drug users to the community, potentially compromise the recovery of those living in local sober-living homes and pose a threat to public safety.

Retrieved August 9, 2018 from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-needle-exchange-20180808-story.html#

Liberal Narrative Causes Chaos

People paying attention already know this but, with a focus on immigration and criminal justice, our favorite thinker on all law enforcement related issues, Heather MacDonald, writes about the chaos in City Journal.

An excerpt.

So it was a ruse. The hysteria over the separation of illegal-alien asylum-seekers from their children (or their purported children) was in large part pretextual. The real target of rage was the Trump administration’s policy of prosecuting all illegal border-crossers for the federal misdemeanor of illegal entry.

In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy for illegal entry. Henceforth, virtually all aliens caught entering the country illegally would be held for prosecution, rather than being released on their own recognizance for a later noncriminal deportation proceeding, to which few ever showed up. (This new enforcement policy would have come as a surprise to anyone who had fallen for the advocates’ decades-long lie that illegal entry is not a crime.) Under the new policy, even if the adult had brought a child with him across the border—the usual accoutrement of an asylum-seeker, for reasons explained below—the adult would still be prosecuted. The adult would be held in a U.S. marshal’s facility pending trial, while the child would be placed in a dormitory run by the U.S. Health and Human Services department, since children cannot be held in criminal lockups.

Images of child border-crossers, separated from their adult companion and crying or looking upset—and the experience would undoubtedly be traumatic for most young children—triggered nonstop coverage of Trump administration cruelty. MSNBC and CNN set up border encampments from which reporters and pundits pontificated on the child-separation crisis. Nazi and Holocaust analogies flew around the Internet; faculty petitions invoked the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Mexico and four other Latin American countries filed a human rights complaint against the U.S. Politicians and religious leaders lined up to denounce White House racism and anti-immigrant hatred.

On Wednesday, Trump called their bluff. He signed an executive order that would house illegal-alien adults with minors in Department of Homeland Security or other government facilities. The zero-tolerance policy, however, would continue. Democratic politicians and illegal alien advocates immediately cried foul. “Make no mistake: the President is doubling down on his ‘zero tolerance’ policy,” Democratic U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, said in a statement Wednesday. “His new Executive Order criminalizes asylum-seekers . . . . Locking up whole families is no solution at all—the Trump Administration must reverse its policy of prosecuting vulnerable people fleeing three of the most dangerous countries on earth.”

The Harvard Kennedy School’s Juliette Kayyem told CNN’s Don Lemon on Wednesday night: “The real problem is Sessions’ decision to prosecute [illegal border crossers] 100 percent.” A CNN anchor on Thursday morning asked U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, if his position was: don’t criminally charge each person who illegally crosses the border. Schiff responded: “We don’t have to criminalize everyone that’s coming here seeking asylum.” NPR interviewed the director of Migrant Rights and Justice at the Women’s Refugee Commission, Michelle Brané. “Families will be just as traumatized, children will be just as traumatized” under the executive order, she said on Thursday morning. “Exchanging one form of trauma for another is not the solution”; getting rid of the prosecutorial mandate is.

And the open-borders lobby possesses a powerful weapon for doing just that. The extraordinarily complex thicket of interpolated rules and rights that govern U.S. immigration policy (the result of decades of nonstop litigation by the immigration bar) contains a series of judicial mandates that defeated even the Obama administration’s tepid efforts to bring some semblance of lawfulness to the border. A long-running class-action lawsuit in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, originally styled Flores v. Reno, has held that alien minors cannot be confined by the government for longer than 20 days. This 20-day cap contributed to the flood of Central American child-toting asylum seekers that picked up steam during President Obama’s second term. Asylum petitions typically take months, if not years, to adjudicate, given the long backlog of such cases in the immigration courts. If an adult crosses the border alone and utters the magic asylum words—a fear of persecution in his home country—he could in theory be held in detention until his asylum claim was adjudicated. If, however, he brings a child with him and makes an asylum pitch, he puts the government to a choice: detain the adult separately until his claim is heard and release the child after 20 days, or release both adult and child together.

The Obama administration usually chose the second option. Word coursed through Mexico and Central America that taking a child across the border was a get-out-of-jail-free card that would exempt its holder from both criminal prosecution and detention. This child-release lever, coupled with Obama’s announcement in 2012 that he would grant amnesty to the so-called Dreamers, meant that Obama soon had his own family border crisis on his hands. In 2014, 70,000 adult-child units and 70,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended illegally crossing into the U.S. The administration tried building large family detention centers to hold the children and their accompanying adults, but the same Flores decree that has bedeviled the Trump White House stymied that effort. In 2015, a federal trial judge, Holly Gee, herself appointed by Obama and the very definition of an activist jurist, vastly expanded the scope of the original decree and ordered the administration to release the detained minors. The Department of Homeland Security warned that ending family detention would trigger another border surge. Judge Gee dismissed this concern as “fear-mongering,” according to the Associated Press….

Obeying the law, however, is something that must never be demanded of politically correct victims. If lawbreaking carries negative consequences, the fault lies with the legal system, not with an individual’s decision to break the law in the first place.

This principle is at work in the ongoing attacks on the criminal-justice system as well: the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is attributed to allegedly racist actors and institutions, not to lawbreaking by the criminals. Non-legal forms of distress are also covered by the no-agency rule. If single mothers experience elevated rates of poverty, the fault lies with a heartless welfare system, not with their decision to conceive a child out-of-wedlock. The father, of course, is as good as nonexistent, in the eyes of the single-mother welfare lobby. If teen mothers are stressed out, the problem lies in the absence of daycare centers in high schools.

Retrieved June 23, 2018 from https://www.city-journal.org/html/whos-really-blame-border-15986.html

Bringing Back the Asylum

Long overdue, as this article in the Wall Street Journal reports.

An excerpt.

When Richard Quintero broke into a Pizza Hut in High Point, N.C., early one morning in late March, he called 911 himself to let the police know. “Yes, this is Jesus Christ and I just broke into the Pizza Hut,” he said, according to a recording of the call. He then told the dispatcher that he was schizophrenic and kept getting kicked out of homes. When the police arrived, Mr. Quintero was cooperative but was still arrested on charges of felony breaking and entering and felony larceny. He spent time at a state prison before being found incompetent to stand trial and sent for a short-term stay at a state mental hospital.

Many in his situation, unfortunately, tend to stay behind bars: In the U.S. today, jails and prisons have become our mental asylums. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that some 365,000 American adults with serious mental illness are behind bars and an additional 770,000 are on probation or parole. A 2017 Justice Department study estimates that some 37% of all prison inmates suffer some mental illness and that 26.4% of jail inmates suffer from a psychosis.

They are behind bars because, too often, they have nowhere to go. Two generations of policy have led to the mass closing of state mental hospitals. The extent of the resulting problems—for the seriously mentally ill in general, not just those in jails or prisons—is so widespread that a case is building to bring back the asylum, especially for those who pose a risk to others or themselves. But proponents aren’t advocating for a return of the inhumane places of the past. What’s needed is a new generation of flexible and varied institutions.

To understand the problem, it helps to look back at the history of asylums. In 1840, Dorothea Dix, the former headmistress of a Boston school for girls, had completed a trip to England meant to help recover her health. Influenced by Quaker reformers there, she was exposed to the cause then known as “lunacy reform”—the idea that government had an obligation to care for the mentally ill.

Back in the U.S., Dix went on to survey and expose what was quickly understood to be a scandal: the confinement of the mentally ill in prisons. Dix successfully convinced states to invest in large-scale asylums, where those suffering from mental illness would be well cared for in impressive and expensive facilities. The construction and staffing of those state hospitals—which, in the early days, were often lofty, light-filled buildings with communal dining halls and sprawling grounds for outdoor exercise—became major state expenses.

By the mid-20th century, the system had grown into a vast network of 322 state and county hospitals holding more than 550,000 beds. But they had grown to encompass much more than housing the mentally ill. In an era before Social Security or long-term nursing care, they served as housing of last resort for those suffering with dementia, sexually transmitted diseases and other ills. “By becoming the dumping ground for all manner of people who could not care for themselves, the once-grand asylums deteriorated into snake pits and hellholes worthy of exposes,” says Jeffrey Geller, medical director of the Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital, one of the last surviving hospitals for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness in Massachusetts. Overcrowding and less oversight created a much lower quality of care for patients. Work opportunities that taught valuable social skills disappeared under the guise of patient rights.

Today, we face the same problem that Dix found: that treatment for mental illness is fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment. As Dominic Sisti, Andrea Segal and Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania argue in a 2015 essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “It is difficult to imagine how ethically sound treatment of mentally ill prisoners can be delivered.” Many such prisoners are so difficult that they are held in solitary confinement. One advantage we have today is that mental illness can often be successfully treated with medication—but that may require supervision to ensure the patient is following the regimen.

As one option on a spectrum of possible settings, state hospitals would not require a huge number of facilities. In his 2013 book “American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System,” E. Fuller Torrey of the Treatment Advocacy Center, citing data from the National Institute of Mental Health, estimates that only 1% of the approximately 12.3 million people suffering from serious mental illness are a threat to themselves or others. That would mean facilities adequate to house a maximum of 123,000 people.

Nor would they have to be large, isolated institutions filled with beds. Experiments with new models have begun to emerge, including those modeled after Massachusetts’ Gould Farm, a “therapeutic community” operating since 1913 that is based in farming, where its 40-some residents feed animals, prepare meals, participate in fitness activities, maintain walking trails and run the farm’s cafe and bakery. “There are many different modalities,” says Dr. Sisti, who has promoted the asylum idea as part of a broader continuum of care in a series of panels and papers for the American Psychiatric Association. “Therapeutic communities, farmsteads, recovery campus settings. There should be a range of hospitals, as well, both public and private—but they should be within reach and affordable.” Not every patient would need a long-term stay.

Retrieved May 21, 2018 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-to-bring-back-the-asylum-1526658277?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

Classical Music & Crime

The impact is marvelous as this story from the LA Review of Books reports.

An excerpt.

AT THE CORNER of 8th and Market in San Francisco, by a shuttered subway escalator outside a Burger King, an unusual soundtrack plays. A beige speaker, mounted atop a tall window, blasts Baroque harpsichord at deafening volumes. The music never stops. Night and day, Bach, Mozart, and Vivaldi rain down from Burger King rooftops onto empty streets.

Empty streets, however, are the target audience for this concert. The playlist has been selected to repel sidewalk listeners — specifically, the mid-Market homeless who once congregated outside the restaurant doors that served as a neighborhood hub for the indigent. Outside the BART escalator, an encampment of grocery carts, sleeping bags, and plastic tarmacs had evolved into a sidewalk shantytown attracting throngs of squatters and street denizens. “There used to be a mob that would hang out there,” remarked local resident David Allen, “and now there may be just one or two people.” When I passed the corner, the only sign of life I found was a trembling woman crouched on the pavement, head in hand, as classical harpsichord besieged her ears.

This tactic was suggested by a cryptic organization called the Central Market Community Benefit District, a nonprofit collective of neighborhood property owners whose mission statement strikes an Orwellian note: “The CMCBD makes the Central Market area a safer, more attractive, more desirable place to work, live, shop, locate a business and own property by delivering services beyond those the City of San Francisco can provide.” These supra-civic services seem to consist primarily of finding tasteful ways to displace the destitute.

The inspiration for the Burger King plan, a CMCBD official commented, came from the London Underground. In 2005, the metro system started playing orchestral soundtracks in 65 tube stations as part of a scheme to deter “anti-social” behavior, after the surprising success of a 2003 pilot program. The pilot’s remarkable results — seeing train robberies fall 33 percent, verbal assaults on staff drop 25 percent, and vandalism decrease 37 percent after just 18 months of classical music — caught the eye of the global law-enforcement community. Thus, an international phenomenon was born. Since then, weaponized classical music has spread throughout England and the world: police units across the planet now deploy the string quartet as the latest addition to their crime-fighting arsenal, recruiting Officer Johann Sebastian as the newest member of the force.

Experts trace the practice’s origins back to a drowsy 7-Eleven in British Columbia in 1985, where some clever Canadian manager played Mozart outside the store to repel parking-lot loiterers. Mozart-in-the-Parking-Lot was so successful at discouraging teenage reprobates that 7-Eleven implemented the program at over 150 stores, becoming the first company to battle vandalism with the viola. Then the idea spread to West Palm Beach, Florida, where in 2001 the police confronted a drug-ridden street corner by installing a loudspeaker booming Beethoven and Mozart. “The officers were amazed when at 10 o’clock at night there was not a soul on the corner,” remarked Detective Dena Kimberlin. Soon other police departments “started calling.” From that point, the tactic — now codified as an official maneuver in the Polite Policeman’s Handbook — exploded in popularity for both private companies and public institutions. Over the last decade, symphonic security has swept across the globe as a standard procedure from Australia to Alaska.

Retrieved May 19, 2018 from https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/bach-at-the-burger-king/#

Courts Got Wacky, Crime Exploded

That is the gist of this excellent article from the American Greatness blog.

An excerpt.

When the great Thomas Sowell retired from writing commentary in 2016, he wrapped up his farewell column this way:

With all the advances of blacks over the years, nothing so brought home to me the social degeneration in black ghettoes like a visit to a Harlem high school some years ago.

When I looked out the window at the park across the street, I mentioned that, as a child, I used to walk my dog in that park. Looks of horror came over the students’ faces, at the thought of a kid going into the hell hole which that park had become in their time.

When I have mentioned sleeping out on a fire escape in Harlem during hot summer nights, before most people could afford air-conditioning, young people have looked at me like I was a man from Mars. But blacks and whites alike had been sleeping out on fire escapes in New York since the 19th century. They did not have to contend with gunshots flying around during the night.

Sowell grew up in Harlem in the late 1930s and 1940s. I grew up in Houston in the late 1950s and 1960s. Like Sowell, I can tell of some carefree practices that would seem strange now.

Houston was a segregated city back then, but already a very large one. Yet my parents gave me the run of the town. They let me take the bus to the central library and the downtown movie palaces, and after I showed I could handle a bicycle safely in traffic, they let me ride it through all kinds of neighborhoods to distant record stores and hobby shops. It never occurred to them to be afraid of what some nogoodnik might do to me.

The only thing approaching violence I encountered was when a black kid pegged me with a BB gun from a half-block away. When the pellet bounced off my head, I just thought, “That’s pretty good shooting,” and kept on riding. Getting shot with a BB gun was no big deal; my brother had been shot in the belly, at close range, which really hurt, but the only repercussion was that we scratched the dumb redneck who shot him from our list of playmates.

What suburban family would let their boy run loose in a city the size of Houston today? This long-vanished nonchalance prevailed not only among Harlem’s poor and Houston’s middle class, but among the rich as well. Look at the older silk-stocking districts of any American city. What won’t you see surrounding them? Security gates. Rich, poor, or in-between, Americans once upon a time lived without fear of their neighbors.

Only a decade after I rambled around on a bicycle, Houston became a playground for one of the worst serial killers ever, a man who with two accomplices abducted, raped, tortured, and murdered at least 28 boys from 1970 until 1973.

Why are we not intent on undoing the social and legal changes that let such evil flourish?

Sowell’s column closed with these words:

We cannot return to the past, even if we wanted to, but let us hope that we can learn something from the past to make for a better present and future. Goodbye and good luck to all.

For many months now, I’ve been challenging Donald Trump to make good his promise that “the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon—and I mean very soon—come to an end.” So far, no chorus of readers, pundits, politicians and citizens has risen to press forward that cause, and the reason may be that most Americans today are too young to remember how things were before crime assumed its present dimensions. Let us therefore “learn something from the past to make for a better present and future.” Let us recall not only what we once had in the way of law and order, but how what we had was lost.

Consider just one aspect of the problem: the revolution in criminal justice imposed on us by the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

When historian Stephen Ambrose asked former President Eisenhower to name his biggest mistake, Ike “replied heatedly, ‘The appointment of that S.O.B. Earl Warren.’ Shocked, I replied, ‘General, I always thought that was your best appointment.’ ‘Let’s not talk about it,’ he responded, and we did not.” Later, Ambrose read the “flattering and thoughtful references” to Warren in Eisenhower’s diary, and concluded that his anger at Warren resulted from the “criminal rights” cases of the 1960s, not the civil rights cases of the 1950s.

Eisenhower was hardly alone in his anger. The most controversial ruling of Warren’s tenure wasn’t Brown v. Board of Education, which the court decided on a unanimous vote in 1954. It wasn’t even the edicts against prayer and Bible readings in public school, although those raised quite a stink and in their own way may have contributed to the subsequent crime explosion. The Warren Court’s most controversial ruling, in fact, was Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the 5-4 decision that imposed on police a duty to inform a suspect of his rights before questioning him, and let the most red-handed culprit get away with the most heinous crimes if police didn’t follow procedure.

Bear in mind that Miranda didn’t create the right to remain silent. Decades before, the court had barred third-degree interrogation, the principal means of trampling that right, with no harmful effect on law enforcement. Miranda broke new ground, and its results were new, too. New, but not improved.

Writing for the court, Warren acknowledged, “the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented.” He took note of the methods prescribed by advanced police manuals and textbooks for getting around a suspect’s defenses. For example, interrogators would pretend to see things the suspect’s way. “The officers are instructed to minimize the moral seriousness of the offense, to cast blame on the victim or on society.”

Warren complained that if the suspect didn’t warm to such treatment and instead insisted on his constitutional right to say nothing at all, then the manuals advised the examiner to “concede him the right to remain silent” but to “point out the incriminating significance of the suspect’s refusal to talk.” Thus by “patience and persistence,” officers managed to draw many suspects out, eliciting alibis that wouldn’t hold up, to be followed by incriminating admissions hedged by excuses and understatement, with a complete confession frequently the end result.

Retrieved April 15, 2018 from https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/14/miranda-versus-america/

 

The Difficulty of Speaking Truth

It seems like it has always been so, making this situation described by Front Page Magazine hardly surprising, though the results of it on the academy is deeply saddening.

An excerpt.

Until last week, I’d never heard of Amy Wax. She is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who landed in hot water after she co-authored a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed last August 9 with Larry Alexander, who teaches law at the University of San Diego. Under the headline “Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture,” Wax and Alexander began their piece by listing some of the sociocultural pathologies currently plaguing America – low job skills, widespread opioid abuse, inner-city gang violence, one-parent homes, and high-school and college students who lack basic skills. They went on to attribute these problems to “the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.”

They recalled the precepts by which Americans lived in the mid twentieth century: get married before you have kids; try to avoid divorce; get educated; work hard; be patriotic, neighborly, charitable, respectful, and law-abiding. Yes, they admitted, mid-century America was hardly perfect. There was racism; there were rebels who broke the rules. But the rules themselves were good.  They resulted in “productivity, educational gains and social coherence.” Now they’re gone, replaced in many subcultures by “antisocial habits,” “rap culture,” “anti-assimilation ideas,” an obsession with group identity, and other destructive forces that do a terrible job of preparing young people for responsible adult lives.

Every word of that op-ed was sheer common sense. (As NYU professor Jonathan Haidt observed, Wax’s concerns about the black subculture were expressed in the 1960 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who at the time “was roundly condemned as a racist” but whose analysis is now echoed by countless sociologists.) Yet the op-ed was widely seen as scurrilous. The very next day, the Daily Pennsylvanian ran an interview with Wax in which she declared that “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms” were “superior” to others. “I don’t shrink from the word, ‘superior,’” she said. “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.” She underscored that Western norms “aren’t just for white people” but “can help minorities get ahead.”

Again, pure fact. But her Penn Law colleagues were outraged. Five of them, writing on August 20, accused Wax of waxing nostalgic for bigotry and exclusion. Ten days later, in an open letter, thirty-three Penn Law profs condemned Wax for affirming the superiority of Western culture – although the letter presented only assertions, no arguments. (One of the signatories told Wax to her face that her words of praise for the West were “code for Nazism.”) There were demands for Wax’s firing, or at least her removal from academic committees. But she survived.

On February 16, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Wax in which she recounted the fallout from her Inquirer op-ed and proposed that academic leftists try responding to dissenting views not by hurling ad hominem abuse and making accusations of racism but by attempting “to explain, using logic, evidence, facts and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong.” (Good luck with that.) On February 20, Wax gave a riveting talk at the American Enterprise Institute in which she repeated much of the content of her Journal piece but also offered some bleak prognostications about the fate of higher education: even as the last few remaining classical liberals on the university faculties are retiring or dying off, they’re being replaced by young profs who have no regard for robust debate or free speech; meanwhile students think that “feelings are everything” and that “there’s no need to read …or…know anything” because “the whole past is tainted by sexism and patriarchy.”

Retrieved March 20, 2018 from https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269630/whacking-wax-bruce-bawer

Mass Incarceration

The deceptive narrative is unveiled in this superb article by Heather Mac Donald (one of the best criminal justice policy leaders in the country) from City Journal.

An excerpt.

In July 2015, President Obama paid a press-saturated visit to a federal penitentiary in Oklahoma. The cell blocks that Obama toured had been evacuated in anticipation of his arrival, but after talking to six carefully prescreened inmates, he drew some conclusions about the path to prison. “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made,” the president told the waiting reporters.

The New York Times seconded this observation in its front-page coverage of Obama’s prison excursion. There is but a “fine line between president and prisoner,” the paper noted. Anyone who “smoked marijuana and tried cocaine,” as the president had as a young man, could end up in the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution, according to the Times.

This conceit was preposterous. It takes a lot more than marijuana or cocaine use to end up in federal prison. But the truth didn’t matter. Obama’s prison tour came in the midst of the biggest delegitimation of law enforcement in recent memory. Activists, politicians, and the media have spent the last year broadcasting a daily message that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks and insanely draconian. The immediate trigger for that movement, known as Black Lives Matter, has been a series of highly publicized deaths of black males at the hands of the police. But the movement also builds on a long-standing discourse from the academic Left about “mass incarceration,” policing, and race.

Now that discourse is going mainstream. As the press never tires of pointing out, some high-profile figures on the right are joining the chorus on the left for deincarceration and decriminalization. Newt Gingrich is pairing with left-wing activist Van Jones, and the Koch brothers have teamed up with the ACLU, for example, to call for lowered prison counts and less law enforcement. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill support reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences for federal drug-trafficking crimes, in the name of racial equity.

At the state and city levels, hardly a single criminal-justice practice exists that is not under fire for oppressing blacks. Traffic monitoring, antitheft statutes, drug patrols, public-order policing, trespass arrests, pedestrian stops, bail, warrant enforcement, fines for absconding from court, parole revocations, probation oversight, sentences for repeat felony offenders—all have been criticized as part of a de facto system for locking away black men and destroying black communities.

There may be good reasons for radically reducing the prison census and the enforcement of criminal laws. But so far, the arguments advanced in favor of that agenda have been as deceptive as the claim that prisons are filled with casual drug users. It is worth examining the gap between the reality of law enforcement and the current campaign against it, since policy based on fiction is unlikely to yield positive results.

Retrieved March 20, 2018 from https://www.city-journal.org/html/decriminalization-delusion-14037.html

Fatherless Mass Shooters

This is not surprising, as noted by Crisis Magazine.

An excerpt.

A fascinating fact has emerged in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting: 26 of the 27 deadliest mass shooters in American history all happened to share one thing in common. What might that be? Your favorite liberal might pipe up with anything and everything from casting a vote for Donald Trump to NRA membership to a seat in the local megachurch. Nope.

All but one of the 27 was raised without his biological father.

The list of 27 was compiled by CNN. Suzanne Venker, a marriage-family expert, went through the family backgrounds of the 27 shooters, where she found only one “raised by his biological father since childhood.”

“Indeed, there is a direct correlation between boys who grow up with absent fathers and boys who drop out of school, who drink, who do drugs, who become delinquent and who wind up in prison,” observes Venker, adding: “And who kill their classmates.”

Again, 26 of 27. That’s 96.3 percent. That is one mighty and scary correlation.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that boys raised in fatherless families are likely to become mass shooters. (Do I really need to say that?) But it’s yet further affirmation of what we already know: boys need dads. Just as daughters need dads. Children need fathers. They also need mothers.

Retrieved March 5, 2018 from https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/fatherless-shooters-liberals-push-fatherless-families