Lifted from the comments, Mr Burkett ponders crime and its apologists:
Which means that if police and prosecutors are free to do their jobs in the most basic and obvious way, which is to say that they are free to pursue crime where it exists and allowed to arrest and prosecute those people who actually commit crimes, then those policies will reify disparities that even mainstream liberals agree are unconscionable.
This means that they will always be in tension with any attempt to effectively police crime. This tension is not incidental or tangential or irrelevant. It is core to why liberals must always to some degree be in opposition to criminal justice.
Regarding the consequent conflictedness and anxiety, all that progressive wrongness, these three posts include some fairly vivid illustrations of the phenomenon.
Among which, a claim that more theatre for schoolchildren would somehow deter the kinds of creatures who repeatedly and gleefully sucker-punch elderly ladies for being the wrong race, and a chap who insists that women should allow themselves to be mugged at bus stops lest their mugger, out on probation, come to harm.
Oh, and the belief, expressed tearfully and at length by a Guardian columnist, that when you find your home being burgled in the middle of the night, the real victims, the people deserving of sympathy and indulgence, are the ones breaking into your home while brandishing carving knives and then driving off with your valuables in your car.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
Recent Comments