Many communities in the US have close to zero crime, and do so without violating unalienable rights.
I prefer the system outlined in the Constitution.
>Many communities in the US have close to zero crime, and do so without violating unalienable rights.
>I prefer the system outlined in the Constitution.
We didn’t really extend full criminal rights to the public at large until the 60s. Before that the rights outlines in the Constitution applied to mostly the middle and upper classes while the lower classes got more of the treatment we see in Japan and China today. Remember that constitutional rights were only really intended for land owners. People responsible enough to own land often were not extended such rights.
Note that when we did extend those full criminal rights to the public at large in the 60s and crime went through the roof. Applying a criminal system justice system designed for responsible people to irresponsible people is bad idea as our experiment with it has demonstrated. In order to get crime down in the 90s and 00s we had to lock up almost 3% of the population and even then we didn’t come anywhere near the low crime rate we had before the 60s.
So we really have 2 choices in crime control: Return to the tradition of only giving full criminal rights to middle and upper classes while applying the harsher system on the lower classes or lock up a huge chunk of the lower classes after they commit crimes and leave entire areas as burned out crime filled slums.
I choose our traditional system. Which do you choose?