More Prisoners, Less Crime: George Will has this column in Sunday's WashPost on the conspicuous absence of crime from the current political campaign. "Listening to political talk requires a third ear that hears what is not said. Today's near silence about crime probably is evidence of social improvement."
The irony is that the very success of getting tough on crime, thereby reducing crime rates, is what has pushed the issue to the back burner. Will quotes Heather MacDonald and James Q. Wilson refuting some of the pervasive myths.
Doug Berman at SL&P has this hostile post on the column. He says Will does not "take a serious look," that he "simply echos pro-imprisonment researchers," and he "attack liberals for questioning the extreme US incarceration rate." It is painfully evident to any regular reader of SL&P that there is a drastic double standard in operation here. Editorials with no more balance in their citation of research than this one, but going the other way, are routinely dubbed "strong" and "effective" at SL&P. The charge that Will is "attack[ing] liberals" is nonsense. He simply disagrees with them. That is what debate is all about. On the other hand, Prof. Berman's charge that Will is "more eager to attack opponents than to follow his principles" is an attack, and a cheap shot at that. Limited-government conservatism is in no way inconsistent with the idea that the government should vigorously carry out its core functions, and protecting people from crime is the number one domestic function of government.
Leave a comment