< PREVIOUS ] [ 1994 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Hardly anybody ever gets elected, let alone re-elected,
by promising to coddle criminals
or be soft on
crime.
So it's no surprise that in this election year, we hear much demagoguery from Washington about how the federal government needs to take a greater role in fighting crime.
Such electioneering is nothing new -- like newspapers in a circulation war, candidates need crime waves. Gale Norton, attorney general of Colorado, was in town last weekend to proclaim that crime -- not jobs, health care, education or housing -- is the Number One Issue this year.
In response to a previous collapse of civilization,
Richard Nixon promised law and order.
He set a
record for presidential appointees who were later
indicted.
His successor, Gerald Ford, was another fan
of law and order, but he could hardly get tough with
criminals
after he pardoned Nixon.
Along came Ronald Reagan, a tough crime fighter who
broke Nixon's record for presidential appointees who
were later indicted.
Then George Bush, whose last major
act in office was to pardon some felons.
This should demonstrate that the American presidency is hardly a suitable pulpit for preaching against crime. And those senators and representatives who keep urging that more offenses should be made into federal cases should look at the federal government's dismal record in crime-fighting.
The federal government is directly responsible for law enforcement in Washington, D.C. So if the feds knew how to fight crime efficiently, then Washington should be the safest place in America, right?
Instead, the District of Columbia leads America in violent crime, with an annual rate of 2,468 violent offenses per 100,000 people. That's almost twice the rate of the runner-up, Florida with 1,244. The national average is 732; Colorado is relatively safe at 301.
Yet the District of Columbia spends more -- $958 per capita each year -- than any other jurisdiction. North Dakota spends but $82 a year to fight crime, which means it should be a snakepit of violent anarchy, but its violent crime rate is only 74. North Dakotans spend much less on law enforcement, and they get much less -- much less crime.
Perhaps all that spending is a result, rather than a cause, of crime, although there is no record of a government ever building a prison and then failing to create enough felons to fill it.
Further, for the federal government to be an appropriate body for fighting crime, it should quit committing crimes. Less that a fortnight ago, a Texas jury acquitted the Branch Dravidians on most charges -- which means that the federal agents were guilty of assault, trespass and mass murder.
There are Stinger missiles all over the world, distributed by our federal government, the largest merchant of death known to history. The federal government shoots down civilian airliners and poisons vast stretches of our own countryside.
If our senators and representatives are truly serious about fighting crime, why don't they put the federal house in order first? Then they can get on with the important business of making every city as safe as Washington.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1994 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >