Enough of my satire. What we have here this morning is the announcement that 2009 will be DC's year of having the lowest number of murders in 45 years. I often cast a lot of negative light on DC, but I'm glad to see some real progress here. That city can often be a battlefield, and that less people are getting killed there is something to commend.
DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier told FOX DC why there was a reduction in murders, and I was interested in her response:
The first is focusing on those repeat violent gun offenders,” said Chief Cathy Lanier in an interview in her office Monday. "It's a small number of people who consistently carry guns and engage in repeat violent gun offenses. If you can focus on those people and get them off the street that is the number one key ingredient."To me, the term "repeat violent gun offenders" is a misnomer. I know what she is implying, that they are focused on catching violent criminals who use guns to their advantage, but that's not what the words add up to, and is the reason for my mocking title to this post. Either way, it makes sense to go after the violent offenders, and I can see how that helped. To further this idea, why not focus on keeping the violent criminals in prison to start with; you know, not let them become "repeat" violent offenders? Why is it that criminals get a second, third, or fourth chance at showing how little they care about human life?
I opine that instead of paroling a thug who robbed a bank at gunpoint, or some crackhead who beat his girlfriends face in with a brick, that DC would instead. . . . oh I don't know. . . .keep them behind bars for another forty or fifty years. That's a nuance, right? Instead of a ten year sentence that is never fully served, just keep them for a little extra just to be sure that if they do get to rejoin society, that they will be using a walker instead of a Jennings.
What do you think?