From: williamf@umbc5.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: Crime Here
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Distribution: dc
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.233742.9574@socrates.umd.edu> ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:
>olds@helix.nih.gov (James L. Olds) writes:
>
>>What about the aspect of randomness though. I grew up in LA, used
>>to live on Cap. Hill here. I've never had a problem w. common sense
>>avoidance of trouble. But how far would common sense get you in 
>>Bosnia where a mortar round could slam into you at any moment. It
>>seems to me that in the last 5 years there has been a *qualitative*
>>change in DC whereby the violence has become so common and at the
>>same time so random, that it gives one the impression of no longer
>>having the slightest control over one's personal safety (I'm not 
>>particularly concerned with property here). Does this make any
>>sense to y'all? 
>Yes, it certainly does.  It seems that every year, there are more and
>more well-published cases of random, unprovoked violence.  There was
>the woman who was killed as she and her husband were driving along
>I295 because the perp "felt like shooting someone".  There was the
>woman who got killed in crossfire during a shootout in downtown DC.
>There was the guy who was shot by someone with a shotgun, the latter
>who afterwards told his friends "I didn't like his music anyway".  
>I suppose carjackings can be considered random too, since they occur
>all over the metropolitan area and all kinds of cars are stolen.
>
>The more I think about the problems with the cities, the more
>depressed I get.  It seems that no-one is willing or able to *do*
>something about the problems.  Bush hasn't done much during his 12
>years in power and probably wouldn't do anything useful if he's given
>four more years in power.  Clinton *may* be able to work with the
>community leaders, but he may be unwilling to make tough decisions,
>such as imposing requirements on welfare recipients.  Should Perot
>win, I get the impression we'd soon see the army or national guard
>help the local police and various federal agencies impose city-wide
>curfews, cordon off the most crime-plagued parts of the cities and
>then search every single house for fugitives, drugs, cash and whatever
>else they please. :(

  I agree with practically everything you say.  The solutions don't have
  to be Bush's desire not to offend suburban voters, Clinton's desire
  not to offend anybody or Perot's intent to offend everybody.  The solution
  is for all of us to agree to:
  1/ raise taxes on ourselves 
  2/ demand that those taxes be applied exclusively to the justice system in
     the form of a/ expanded prison space b/ reduction in prisoner's rights
     so that we can double and triple bunk them if necessary c/ more judges
     and better armed police on the streets
  3/ reform the parole and bail system so that 30 years means 30 years
     in prison and bail is much harder to get and meet.
  4/ demand that the federal gov't do its task and protect our borders from
     illegal introductions of drugs and weapons.

  All of this can be accomplished by political will and none of this demands
  any draconian changes.  Absent these kinds of changes and we're going to 
  get the death penalty for every kind of crime imaginable and 5000 state
  sponsered murders every year in every state prison in the Union which
  I guarentee will only create a greater willingness to kill among criminals.
       -William
  


-- 
*   Christ died for our sins.  Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by *
*   not committing any?  So drink, fornicate, blaspheme, be a sodomite   *
*   and die...the price has already been paid.                           *
Warning: The Pope has determined the above sins are injurious to your health.