These people love their mission creep. They wanted to release prisoners because of bat soup virus, failing to realize that maybe the prisons should just be isolated. Some have released low level prisoners. But now they want violent criminals let go. While at the same time wanting to grab guns
Freeing inmates won’t thwart the virus if we exclude those locked up for violence
When a woman accused of trying to kill someone with a poisoned cheesecake appeared on a list of Rikers Island prisoners to be freed because of coronavirus risks, New York’s district attorneys banded together to strike her name. They also struck the names of two men charged in an armed robbery during which a police detective was killed by friendly fire. The pandemic poses an outsize threat to the nation’s jails and prisons, where confined populations can’t take the recommended precautions and often lack access to such basics as soap and hand sanitizer — sometimes even running water. Federal and state authorities, as a result, have begun to release thousands of inmates.
The focus, however, has been on low-level offenders. “There are some at-risk inmates who are non-violent and pose minimal likelihood of recidivism and who might be safer serving their sentences in home confinement,†Attorney General William Barr wrote tepidly late last month in a memorandum to the Bureau of Prisons director. And in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that his state’s efforts “will be for those nonviolent offenses, and we will do it in a very systematic way.â€
The debate over which prisoners to release early and what to do with them rarely considers those charged with or convicted of violent crimes, except to declare that they should stay behind bars. “I have no interest — and I want to make this crystal clear — in releasing violent criminals from our system,†Newsom said. Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, proposed a furlough policy that excluded, among others, anyone with a current or even prior conviction for a violent crime.
Nice to see that Newsom isn’t a total idiot. Unless they are illegal aliens. I bet he might consider releasing them.
Such refusal to think about crimes of violence is, unfortunately, to be expected. Even a decade into a sustained push to reform the way this country deals with crime, serious conversations about how we handle violence remain almost impossible. For example, late last year, when Gov. Matt Bevin of Kentucky pardoned or commuted the sentences of hundreds of prisoners just before he left office, outrage followed; some of those prisoners had been convicted of murder and rape. Two prosecutor associations in Kentucky released a statement denouncing the releases as “arbitrary, callous,†and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called them “completely inappropriate,†considering that they included “people who were incarcerated as a result of heinous crimes.†Days later, the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons refused the petitions of 15 prisoners, some elderly, who were serving life sentences for violent crimes. These decisions, conversely and tellingly, were met largely with silence.
That’s because they committed violent crimes.
The attitude those incidents reveal — that people convicted of violent crimes are in a special category that deserves less compassion and harsher treatment — ignores the math, misunderstands human behavior and, perhaps most important, reflects a poor moral choice. Our draconian approach toward violent crime rests on viewing certain people, and certain groups of people, as not fully human. This has always been a pressing concern in criminal justice reform; during the pandemic, it is a matter of life and death.
Obviously, the long, long piece makes the case that these violent offenders should be let out, because Reasons. Raaaaacism creeps in, as you’d expect. And the author thinks it is worth the risk to release violent criminals who were convicted of violent crimes.
Yet these same people continue to want to disarm Americans and to limit their ability to protect themselves. We’ve seen the attempts, some successful, to close gun stores, close shooting ranges, refuse to allow new gun permits, and such
VA Governor Signs Universal Background Checks, Gun Rationing Bill
Governor Ralph Northam (D) signed legislation Saturday creating universal background checks in Virginia and limiting law-abiding Virginians to one handgun purchase per month.
Northam’s office announced his signature on Senate Bill 70 / House Bill 2, creating the universal checks and thereby outlawing private gun sales.
He signed Senate Bill 69 / House Bill 812 resurrecting Virginia’s “one-handgun-a-month rule to help curtail stockpiling of firearms and trafficking.â€
Northam used a tweet to refer to these gun controls as “commonsense gun safety measures,†but he did not mention that they would not have prevented the May 31, 2019 Virginia Beach shooting that he used as an impetus for gun control.
He also signed other controls into law, including requirements that gun owners report stolen firearms within 48 hours of the theft or face “civil penalty.†This puts the onus for a gun theft on the gun owner, rather than the individual who stole the firearm.
How many guns does a person really need? Personally, I do not need more than my two, a .22 for plinking and 9mm for “you made a bad mistake breaking into my home/trying to jack me while traveling.” Though, if I ever get around to getting my concealed carry, I’ll get something with power that’s compact. It’s better to know your firearm well, right? But, if other people think they want more, that’s their business. Does someone really need 5+ motorcycles? Lots of cars? A casual guitar player more than a 3 or 4? Lots of houses? Doesn’t matter, that is their choice. And firearms are a Constitutional Right.
Read: Washington Post: Hey, We Need To Release The Violent Offenders From Prison Due To Bat Soup Virus »