2 ms·
I agree with his point, but I think that it's also important to note that there was a reason why 'tough on crime' was electoral gold for so long: the U.S. reall
by zeveb 7y ago
I agree with his point, but I think that it's also important to note that there was a reason why 'tough on crime' was electoral gold for so long: the U.S. really did have a problem with violent crime (still does, in comparison to other countries, but it's a lot better now than it was).
There are a whole lot of reasons for that. Our history of racial injustice absolutely destroyed so many black communities, to a degree I hadn't appreciated before I considered it. Closing the asylums (which really were awful, but also really were needed) was another problem. The widespread attitude that the justice system is to punish the guilty rather than reform people who have done bad things is another. I suspect that the fact that Americans descend from folks who were so unusual that they fled across continents and oceans to get away from their communities can't possibly help.
But for all that, prior to the tough-on-crime movement we really did have a problem with real crime — by 'real' I mean crime with actual victims. Things are much better now, and we are much richer now, and so now we have the luxury of being smarter.
- jessaustin 7y agoNo, USA never had such a "problem with violent crime" to justify anything like the evil we've done to the incarcerated in this country. Maybe the media or politicians told you that, but they were scamming your prejudices for attention and votes. Violent crime is much lower now than it was in decades past, but that's true of pretty much anywhere else on earth. The violence we have is mostly a result of drug prohibition (which could go away anytime we decide we'd like less violence) and our colonial legacy. Comparing USA to Belgium is for suckers. The nation to which we are most similar is Brazil. They also have more violence than homogeneous non-colonized nations.