January 9, 2024
Many people today apparently do not understand the concept of law and order. Our country has a body of laws that were enacted to prohibit conduct that is harmful to the people and to our country.
When those laws are broken, our justice system provides for penalties to be imposed on the guilty. They teach the wrongdoer a lesson and serve to discourage people from indulging in the unlawful activities.
However, these penalties and deterrents only work when they are implemented as the law requires.
Police and other law enforcement personnel have the duty to find those who have broken laws, and charge them with criminal offenses. Certain positions that are filled by election and by appointment exist to enforce these laws and to apply charges and penalties as appropriate, such as prosecuting attorneys and judges.
These persons have the sworn duty to apply the laws without fear or favor. Today, and not for the first time, we find public officials who do not apply all of the laws that exist, and when they do, they are sometimes not done fairly.
An article in U.S. News last month explained that there was a tidal wave of progressive prosecutor victories several years ago that campaigned on policies that seek different types of penalties than now exist. These largely consist of counseling and treatment regimens, monetary fines, parole or community service, rather than jail time.
“A Republican state attorney general is asking members of Congress to probe a Justice Department grant that he says benefits a ‘radically progressive’ group responsible for training prosecutors in ways to implement a soft-on-crime approach to their work,” a Fox News online report begins.
Letters to Congress were sent by Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey asking members "to further investigate and eliminate funding for programs that are counter-productive to public safety" and that "aid or encourage prosecutors to abuse discretion by refusing to bring criminals to justice."
In the letters Bailey described a situation where St. Louis circuit attorney Kim Gardner, who he described as "a progressive soft-on-crime prosecutor," released a repeat criminal on bail. The man then hit a young girl with his vehicle at a high speed, resulting in her having her legs amputated.
After much criticism and evidence of dereliction of duty, Gardner resigned from the office.
A case in Austin, Texas, features District Attorney Joseph Garza. Roberto Rangel was arrested for his 7th DUI, that resulted in the deaths of two people in their early 20s. But Garza reduced the charges and bond amount, allowing Rangel back on the streets.
One of the most notorious of these soft-on-crime prosecutors is Los Angeles County, California District Attorney George Gascon, who was elected in 2020 and is up for reelection this year.
After just one year in office, criticism of Gascon was so intense that a recall campaign was begun. While it failed, more than a half-million signatures have been collected for another recall.
Gascon now faces a challenge at the polls from an attorney that works in his office. John McKinney said Gascon “values the rights of offenders more than victims.”
He added that a lot of crime in Los Angeles County is “not committed out of desperation,” but because “people see an opportunity” due to the soft-on-crime atmosphere created by Gascon.
“We’re down 250 attorneys from what we’re budgeted for,” he said. “We have been handcuffed, gagged … and told to do things that are counterproductive and counter to justice. We’ve had enough. We want change.”
We have seen a dramatic and dangerous move away from holding people to account for their criminal behavior.
These idiotic ideas have produced a significant rise in crime in some cities and states. Victims are not being given the satisfaction of seeing those who have robbed them, assaulted them, damaged their property, or perhaps injured or killed a family member get the satisfaction of the guilty parties being punished.
People in important positions in the justice system don’t punish many instances of wrong-doing, but try to punish some people when they haven’t been convicted or even charged. These people also want to make things more difficult for law enforcement personnel and agencies, and even sometimes support closing down prisons.
And then there are those who use criminal prosecutions for ill. While former President Donald Trump may indeed be guilty of the crimes he allegedly committed years ago, why have those charges only been brought now as Trump seeks the presidency in 2024?
And why did the Maine Secretary of State — Shenna Bellows, a Democrat — decide that she is capable of determining guilt, and that she has the authority to determine that Trump is guilty of “insurrection,” even though he has not been found guilty of it in a court, or even officially charged with the crime?
If you don’t like some laws, you may work to change them, but you must not be allowed to ignore them. You must be required act properly when you are in an official capacity.
If the people are expected to honor the actions of public officials, then those officials must act honorably, legally, fairly and sensibly.
No comments:
Post a Comment