Filed under: Crime, Democrat Corruption, Economics, Education, Law, Police, Politics, Regulation, Unemployment | Tags: Crime and Punishment, Proposition 47, San Francisco
A year and a half ago, California voters passed Proposition 47, also known as the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” How could anybody vote against that? Silly, why do you think they give propositions names like that? What it effectively did was to decriminalize a bunch of crimes, including shoplifting.
What do you suppose would happen if you decriminalize shoplifting? For normal people it’s fairly obvious, but for Democrats it is puzzling. They believe that crime is the fault of society, bad parents, lack of a good education, poverty, drugs, or lack of opportunity, not the fault of the victim who stole something that did not belong to him.
So what happened to shoplifting in the absence of punishment? It more than doubled. It has made the struggle of small businessmen to survive far, far more difficult. Anything valued at less than $950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor, which means the criminals won’t be pursued and there will be no punishment. Some shoplifters carried calculators to total up the stuff they had grabbed to avoid re aching the $950 barrier. The ballot measure also lowered the penalties for forgery, fraud, petty theft and drug possession. You might get a ticket. It’s a slap on the wrist the first time, the second time and the 20th time.
Proposition 47 was backed by George Soros money. Newt Gingrich wrote an editorial in support of it.
It is time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on locking up low-level offenders. Proposition 47 on the November ballot will do this by changing six nonviolent, petty offenses from felony punishments (which now can carry prison time) to misdemeanor punishments and local accountability.
The left’s interesting relationship with crime continues. President Obama told graduates at the historically black Howard University that they are living in an era of unprecedented opportunity, but he was speaking to the inequities blacks face. He excused crime at one point as a result of an “unfair and unjust system” and said that success is all just”luck.” He went on to claim that crime was a result ot the system, not the actions of criminals.
That’s a pet peeve of mine — people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wuddn’t nothin’ you did. So don’t have an attitude.”
This line invokes his “you didn’t build that” gaffe from 2012 when Obama insisted that people with a successful business “didn’t build that” on their own and that government was really the catalyst for success.
The President’s commencement message is essentially that if you are black in the U.S. and you are successful, it was just luck and most blacks are held down by an “unfair and unjust” system that won’t allow them to succeed
What an odd point of view and what a troubling speech to graduates. If you are not responsible for your own success or failure—but it’s all just luck, then you don’t have to take responsibility for much of anything, and nobody can blame you for anything. Explains a lot.
Does that point of view effect the whole Democrat Party? California’s Prop. 47 goes right along with their Sanctuary City policies, and the decline of San Francisco into a remarkably dirty city. I can remember when if ladies wanted to go to “the city” to shop or attend an event, they wore hats and gloves. But that was a long time ago, and San Francisco was a different place.
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment