By Kim
April, 5 2002
So the "three strikes" law is up before the Supreme Court. Why, I don’t know, unless it’s to point out how lawyers can screw up almost anything. Here’s my view.
Anyone can make a mistake, once. A kid shoplifts a CD from Tower, gets caught, prosecuted. Strike One. There’s no real reason to get upset about this, especially if the whole experience frightens the kid into a lifetime of propriety.
But if the same kid gets caught a second time--this time, say, he "borrowed" a neighbor’s car for a little joyride--well, now it gets a little more serious. The State should put this kid on notice that he’s marked for the slammer, if he screws up again. And when he does, let’s be honest, it’s because this kid thinks crime is a viable career option, and he should be put away.
Amidst all the wails about someone going to jail for life for boosting a Milky Way, we seldom hear all the facts about the person who gets to that awful Third Strike: most of them have committed multiple crimes, have plea-bargained sentences down, been let off with warnings yadda yadda yadda. They might have been caught for the third time--but it for sure isn’t the actual third time they’ve broken the law.
I remember a while back that a guy was put away for life for stealing a kid’s bike off a porch. All the usual ninnies were wailing about the unjustness of the system. Then the details of his earlier crimes came to light: caught breaking into a house once, then caught inside a person’s garage, both times when the owners were at home. Now if you look at the stats of people who break into occupied places, you learn that there is one common trend across them all: inevitably, the burglar will cause harm to someone if caught in the act.
So don’t give me that jive about being jailed for life just for stealing a six-pack of Bud. The animal is being jailed for life because if he’s not in jail, he’s going to commit a series of crimes against society. For the mathematically-inclined, three points indicate a trend. Human behavior is no different.
By Kim
April, 4 2002
Aaaaargh here we go again. Every time President Bush creates some diplomatic initiative, the TV yap shows persist in trotting out all the old failures to "discuss" (aka criticize) the initiative. I mean, fair and balanced is all very well, but to have fools like ex-Carter and ex-Clinton diplos like Richardson and Vance pissing and moaning… sheeeesh it’s like getting Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax to discuss Churchill’s government during WWII.
Lest we forget, the argument against either group is the same: YOU GUYS CAUSED MOST OF THIS CRAP, by pursuing policies of hopeless, misguided accommodation and forbearance--which the foul Arafat and his ilk took for weakness, which it was.
The most clear-headed analyst on TV is actually the much-reviled Newt Gingrich. I think Newtie is a total dweeb, but as a diagnostician he’s without peer. It’s when he has to prescribe action or policy that Newt falls over.
By Kim
April, 4 2002
Ya know what I’d like to see on TV and in the newspapers? In the interests of journalistic balance, for every report wherein is mentioned a gunfire victim, I’d like to see a report next to it wherein a gun was used either to deter a would-be criminal, or to dispatch a would-be criminal.
Actually, I think the incidence ratio of guns to protect/deter vs. guns to kill innocents is about 1,000:1, and I may be guilty of understatement.
This would not serve the media’s ulterior motive, to demonize gun usage, so I’m not going to hold my breath.
My favorite gunnie bumper sticker: Yesterday, 80 Million Gun Owners Committed No Crimes With Their Guns.
© Copyright 2002 - 2010 TheOtherSideofKim.com. All rights reserved.