Luke Ford

Ben Cohen writes: Reform is an ambiguous word, open to interpretation.  Groups that support amnesty for illegal aliens and groups opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens both claim to support reform; one man’s reform is another man’s folly.

This September, the House Judiciary Committee will release its proposals for criminal justice reform.  The committee will likely suggest a number of measures, such as reducing mandatory minimum sentences, with the aim of reducing the United States’ burgeoning prison population.  In our era of hyper-polarization, reducing the prison population is a rare area of common ground among Republicans and Democrats.  Republicans want to cut costs, and Democrats want a less punitive judicial system.

Efforts to reduce the prison population have focused on nonviolent drug offenders, but as Oliver Roeder pointed out, releasing all drug offenders from state and federal prison would reduce the prison population by only 14 percent.  In other words, it is unclear how deeply we could cut into the prison population without endangering the public.

Enter Colin Flaherty, stage right.

To his detractors, Colin Flaherty is a 21st-century D.W. Griffith, portraying blacks as inherently dangerous and criminal.  Flaherty denies having a racist agenda, describing himself as a journalist reporting politically incorrect facts.  (One of his early achievements was a series that helped free a man unjustly jailed for murder, who happened to be black.  How many of his critics can claim as much?)  Regardless of his motives, Flaherty’s YouTube channel is one of the few places one can witness the reality of violent street crime.

Ignoring the racial angle, the fact that Flaherty can find new footage of innocent people being brutally attacked by criminals demonstrates that street crime remains a major problem.  Particularly sick and disturbing was the death of seventy-four-year old Larry Brown, robbed and beaten to death by three teenagers.

Violent street crime of the type that claimed Larry Brown’s life imposes a cost on society beyond its direct victims.  Will other senior citizens in his neighborhood venture outside, or will they be incarcerated in their own homes by the fear of crime?

Many on the left believe that America’s high rate of incarceration stems from racial bias and overly punitive sentencing.  Conservatives looking to trim fat from the budget have become increasingly receptive to such arguments.  Seeing actual video footage of violent street crime makes it impossible to ignore the cost that crime imposes on society.

Time spent behind bars is a waste of life, and when that time results from excessively harsh sentencing, it represents an injustice.  However, in trying to correct the excesses of the tough-on-crime era, conservatives have to be aware of the consequences of getting this wrong.  As far as Colin Flaherty is reminding them of these costs, he is doing a public service.

Reform is an ambiguous word, open to interpretation.  Groups that support amnesty for illegal aliens and groups opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens both claim to support reform; one man’s reform is another man’s folly.

This September, the House Judiciary Committee will release its proposals for criminal justice reform.  The committee will likely suggest a number of measures, such as reducing mandatory minimum sentences, with the aim of reducing the United States’ burgeoning prison population.  In our era of hyper-polarization, reducing the prison population is a rare area of common ground among Republicans and Democrats.  Republicans want to cut costs, and Democrats want a less punitive judicial system.

Efforts to reduce the prison population have focused on nonviolent drug offenders, but as Oliver Roeder pointed out, releasing all drug offenders from state and federal prison would reduce the prison population by only 14 percent.  In other words, it is unclear how deeply we could cut into the prison population without endangering the public.

Enter Colin Flaherty, stage right.

To his detractors, Colin Flaherty is a 21st-century D.W. Griffith, portraying blacks as inherently dangerous and criminal.  Flaherty denies having a racist agenda, describing himself as a journalist reporting politically incorrect facts.  (One of his early achievements was a series that helped free a man unjustly jailed for murder, who happened to be black.  How many of his critics can claim as much?)  Regardless of his motives, Flaherty’s YouTube channel is one of the few places one can witness the reality of violent street crime.

Ignoring the racial angle, the fact that Flaherty can find new footage of innocent people being brutally attacked by criminals demonstrates that street crime remains a major problem.  Particularly sick and disturbing was the death of seventy-four-year old Larry Brown, robbed and beaten to death by three teenagers.

Violent street crime of the type that claimed Larry Brown’s life imposes a cost on society beyond its direct victims.  Will other senior citizens in his neighborhood venture outside, or will they be incarcerated in their own homes by the fear of crime?

Many on the left believe that America’s high rate of incarceration stems from racial bias and overly punitive sentencing.  Conservatives looking to trim fat from the budget have become increasingly receptive to such arguments.  Seeing actual video footage of violent street crime makes it impossible to ignore the cost that crime imposes on society.

Time spent behind bars is a waste of life, and when that time results from excessively harsh sentencing, it represents an injustice.  However, in trying to correct the excesses of the tough-on-crime era, conservatives have to be aware of the consequences of getting this wrong.  As far as Colin Flaherty is reminding them of these costs, he is doing a public service.

Chateau Heartiste: …the buzzy AmRen article titled “Confessions of a Public Defender” is a harrowing read, and provokes some illicit thought about where we are heading demographically. The impression one gets from this titillating exposure to the minds and values of the zoo animal underclass is that the moral senses… fairness, reciprocity, empathy, guilt, even a basic conception of right and wrong… may very well be unevenly distributed not only among members of the same race but between the races in general. If you quake at the idea that average IQ varies by race, how badly will your bowels shake if it’s discovered that some races are more, or less, morally evolved?

CH has gone out on limbs before that have proven to be supported by trunks of strong empirical oak, and we’ll go out on a limb again, one so far up the tree that few if any will have the balls to venture out with us. Morality and empathy are evolved traits, and like many human traits they will be found in varying degrees and complexities of expression among the world’s races. Given this, the civilized nations would do well to consider that their jurisprudence systems are incapable of impartially subsuming the less morally evolved in a manner that suits their own elevated moral sense. If you cannot or are unwilling to grasp that the defendant sitting across from you is closer in temperament and moral evolution to a feral beast than to your kin, you will forever be stricken with crippling doubt about the nature of your race’s achievements and philosophies.

Demographically, then, it becomes imperative that advanced peoples act to limit the fecundity of relative moral degenerates in their midst, or barring that to erect barriers against the incorporation of the upwardly moral and the downwardly amoral. And yet the exact opposite appears to be the rule of the land currently. Evolution is failing, thanks to a warped altruistic impulse that has provided and sustains a fitness advantage for morally infantile, and thus exceedingly dangerous, humans. Again, like the sperm bank scenario above, the state of nature has been upturned and bifurcated by a middleman — in this case, misplaced leftoid equalist generosity towards lesser people who would impulsively kill them without losing a wink of sleep — and traits that would normally get culled due to the dual pressures of sexual and natural selection become instead numerous and widespread.