The danger that the 111th Congress would enact a major step backward in criminal law, undoing a large part of the progress of the last 20 years, took a big drop yesterday with the stunning upset in Massachusetts. In particular, the murderers' lobby's dream of a major rollback of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 took a serious and possibly fatal blow.
If Massachusetts is not a "safe" seat for the Democratic Party, what is? None in the Senate and few in the House. Of course, this was an open seat and not a challenge to an incumbent, but even so there are more incumbents shifting uncomfortably in their seats than a few weeks ago.
How do incumbents who sense even the slight possibility of defeat behave? Well, for one thing, they are less likely to vote for measures that allow them to be labeled as soft on crime. Contrary to what you may read elsewhere in the blogosphere, "soft on crime" is not just a political label. It is that, of course, but it is much more. It is a capsule description of a disastrous policy error of the 1960s and 1970s. Some would have us believe that it is "smart" to drastically lower sentences and rely on "experts" who claim to be able to fix criminals, who are after all just sick and not evil. Well, we've been there, done that, and got the bloody T-shirt. It was part of the Great Society, and many tens of thousands of innocent people were needlessly robbed, raped, and murdered as a result.
I do not expect crime to be the major issue of the coming election. The success of our tough on crime policies of recent decades paradoxically pushes the issue down the ladder in the public mind. Even so, the issue is still there and might make the difference in a close race. After yesterday, how many politicians in America can be comfortable that their race will not be close? Some, but not nearly as many as before.
If Massachusetts is not a "safe" seat for the Democratic Party, what is? None in the Senate and few in the House. Of course, this was an open seat and not a challenge to an incumbent, but even so there are more incumbents shifting uncomfortably in their seats than a few weeks ago.
How do incumbents who sense even the slight possibility of defeat behave? Well, for one thing, they are less likely to vote for measures that allow them to be labeled as soft on crime. Contrary to what you may read elsewhere in the blogosphere, "soft on crime" is not just a political label. It is that, of course, but it is much more. It is a capsule description of a disastrous policy error of the 1960s and 1970s. Some would have us believe that it is "smart" to drastically lower sentences and rely on "experts" who claim to be able to fix criminals, who are after all just sick and not evil. Well, we've been there, done that, and got the bloody T-shirt. It was part of the Great Society, and many tens of thousands of innocent people were needlessly robbed, raped, and murdered as a result.
I do not expect crime to be the major issue of the coming election. The success of our tough on crime policies of recent decades paradoxically pushes the issue down the ladder in the public mind. Even so, the issue is still there and might make the difference in a close race. After yesterday, how many politicians in America can be comfortable that their race will not be close? Some, but not nearly as many as before.
Leave a comment