Appalling Crimes

In electronic correspondence with Ms. Bune, I cannot be other than impressed by her deep concern for the victims of violent crime in our society and by her eloquent, disciplined ability to express her concern journalistically. In short, I admire her.

In the past I have responded personally to her; her most recent response was that, rather than e-mail her personally, I submit a comment on her articles. This is my first such response.

Few of us have been spared the pain, sorrow, and suffering of losing someone we cherised and treasured deeply. Such injury produces pain that never goes away completely and that leaves scars that never disappear. When to such grief we add the mindlessness, and the viciousness accompanying such a loss, it seems too great a burden for anyone to bear. No one should have to. A
Brazilian commentator and philosopher, Val����������������rio Fabris, has written, "A mis����������������ria foi a pior inven��������������������������������o da humanidade������������������������ (Misery is humanity's worst invention). It is true. There is so much that we puny humans cannot do. We cannot bring back a deceased loved one, for example. But to leave a grieving widow to suffer in misery is something we can do to prevent.

I share with everyone futile desire to somehow undo the horror that has been wrought. Like everone, all I can do is ask, "What can we do to prevent at least some future recurrence of this incidence?"

The death penalty is suggested as a small measure of justice for the vicitms. But at what point do we, collectively, distinguish between revenge and justice? This country and China have a similar number of people incarcerated. We are among the very few countries in this world to continue to impose the death penalty. Ms. Bune, a scholar in her own right, knows that there is no significant correlation between the sanctions taken against criminals (and people erroneously convicted) by our society and any reduction in crime--especially violent crime.

In short, over generations, our policy has been tried and tried again. Unless its sole purpose is to bring the sense of satisfaction felt by the survivors of crime, why, in the name of prevention alone, do we not examine it more closely?

One change we must reconsider is placing more, better trained law-enforcement personnel on our streets. According to a study published by William and Emily Evans of the University of Maryland, the COPS program under the Clinton adminstration (from which we could learn from its mistakes as well as its successes), properly controlled for other variables, did in fact result in a cost-effective reduction in crime:

"This implies that the total cost of the hiring grants in our sample is approximately $4.4 billion, an amount consistent with the COPS officer's expenditure reports. In order to get a low estimate of the benefit of the COPS hiring grants, we will use the coefficients of officers granted on crimes from model (4), in which we control for pre-existing crime-specific trends. A back of the envelope calculation, based on cost per crime estimates in Miller, et al.(1996), suggests the minimum benefit associated with the COPS hiring grants is $7.6 billion. Assuming that the increase in police officers attributable to COPS hiring grants had no impact on either larcenies or rapes, the benefit is estimated to be $6.1 billion." (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/evans/wpapers/Flypaper%20COPS.pdf)

The Bush Administration made a penny-wise, pound-foolish decision to abolish--rather than improve--this grant.

Numbers alone are not enough, of course. Policemen can bring about a more significant deterrent to crime when they walk a regular beat, get to know the people in a neighborhood and win their trust, and work out of precincts working in the most violent, crime-infested residential areas. Again, such enforcement does cost more in tax dollars, but this cost must be measured against the cost saved in lives, property, and quality of life.

We might also consider the problem of the millions of children with no adult supervision. The increase in their numbers and the increase in gangs and gang violence is no coincidence. Such supervision could be provided in the form of tutoring, supervised recreation, and cultural organizations (I am thinking specifically of the Harlem Boys Choir). A partnership among society at large, volunteers, non-profit organizations, contributions from businesspeople and corporations, and government could go far to demonstrate that we as a society genuinely care about the future of our youth--and of our country.

To summarize, to allow the climate that breeds crime to fester, acting only to punish criminal acts after the fact is far less beneficial to society than is crime prevention. Good jugdgment and sound reasoning can accomplish more good than can the failed policy founded primarily on revenge that masquerades as justice.

I'm with you, ach777

Good point well made ach777

Homer, perhaps you should reread this article. It is about the victim. Not the defendant. Perhaps you should frequent a site about abolishing the death penalty? It appears that you have resorted to posting here because you may need a restraining order if your e-mails are anything like you rant here. Has it ever come to your attention that some people do not belong in this world? The guy highlighted in this article will NEVER become a positive, productive member of our society. Why should we cloth and feed him for the next however many years. I, for one, will sleep better knowing that this animal will cease to exist.

There is no punishment bad enough for this waste of flesh. I say give Mr. Groene five minutes alone with him and the implements of Groene's choosing, that MIGHT beging to scratch the surface of being justice.

Homer, 1 solution. Let this POS move in next door to you. Next door to me would be short lived.

This is response to Mr. Ferguson's comments on the death penalty.
In fact, the death penalty isn't really enough. It's far too quick. My wife believes the bad guy should be penned up in a 4'X4' cage for all his years, be forced to expel his waste into a hole, and never be allowed to change clothes. This is similar to what some of our POWs endured in Vietnam.
The problem with the opponets to the death penalty and all that cage stuff is that leaves bad guys with absolutely nothing to do for 24hrs a day to hate, relive their hate, and figure out ways to escape.
Some would say, 'awwwww, in a maximum penalty prison, how could anyone escape?' Beats me. But many have. And those that do are beyond in sadism, and hate.
Then there is always politics. In politics, someone is always thinking about overcrowding, or jail proceedure being too cruel, inhumane, and all the rest of the liberal drivel that comes out of politics mouths. An outstanding example of this would be Gitmo. The people are there because they were captured on the battlefield to kill or maim members of the United States military. Yet the outcry to remove them from Gitmo, shut Gitmo down, etc.etc. ad naseum, is overwhelming. Even though the bastards gained an average of 30 pounds, and are allowed to worship, have everything they ever wanted, except freedom. This is the same as what's in store for those on death row.
Then there is the final problem: escape. Remember the Briley brothers on death row in Mecklinburg, VA? About 10-12 years ago. They were on death row because of some terrible crimes. But they escaped. During their freedom they burglarized a home, NAILED a grandmother to a chair, then burned it, killing her of course, in the most grotesque way I can think of.
This is the kind of rabid animals we would let back into society of the death penalty was removed. They should all be killed, in a painful way, so that those still in have some idea of what's in store for them. And so that those outside have a good idea of what awaits if they go beyond the line.