<< News Scan | Main | Justices, the SOTU, and Party >>


Preventable Murder, Part Eight Zillion

| 6 Comments

As I noted last week, the failure to impose the death penalty on violent and dangerous killers gives them the opportunity to do it again.  Every now and again they do; indeed, there are more than 100 instances of killing by inmates previously convicted of murder (there may be many more than that; I lost track years ago).  If abolitionists view these murders as even regrettable, much less as a serious moral problem, I have yet to hear about it.

Reader federalist alerts me to three more preventable murders that were committed recently in Florida.  These were not because of a prior failure to impose capital punishment, but they stem from the same clueless Give Peace A Chance "thinking" that oozes from the abolitionist mind.

The story is that when twice-convicted felon Kelser Dufrene, an immigrant from Haiti, was released from his most recent prison sentence (his first arrest was at age 14), he was supposed to be deported.  But it never happened because, even though ICE authorities had him in custody, they let him loose under an Obama administration edict that no one could be deported to Haiti in light of the damage and chaos in that country wrought by the earthquake two years ago.  Instead, ICE released him to prey upon the legal residents of Miami, which he promptly did by killing three of them, including a 15 year-old girl.

The story is here, and the moral of the story is that as long as the criminal justice system allows gushing sentiment to replace hard thinking about what's going to happen next, this sort of travesty is certain to repeat itself. 

6 Comments

Once Obama made his order, ICE had no choice---Supreme Court precedent dictated that he be released. Two of the Justices that decided that alien criminals, if they could not be deported, had the right to walk American streets remain on the bench, Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Of course, the idea that the Constitution somehow gives people who have no right to walk American streets the right to do so is an idea only a liberal would embrace. There is blood on the hands of those two Justices.

Obama's order gives rise to some legitimate questions:

(a) Did DOJ brief him on the obvious consequence of his order, namely that Haitian criminals would be released onto American streets?

(b) Shouldn't he, as a constitutional law professor, have known this was a consequence of his order?

There's also the question--did Obama elevate the interests of foreign criminals over the safety of Americans with his order?

"[D]id Obama elevate the interests of foreign criminals over the safety of Americans with his order?"

Yes, that IS the question now, isn't it?

The reason I thought this story was worth a post on C&C was not that involves three gratuitious murders. The reason was that it illustrates the sort of thinking that liberals on criminal justice issues routinely indulge and congratuatle themselves for ("We're SO much more compassionate than those heartless troglodytes!!!).

I'm willing to bet the house that the Administration's thought process went no farther than this: (1) conditions on Haiti are really bad, (2) therefore it would heartless and uncaring to make anyone go there, therefore (3) Haitian criminal aliens in the United States can stay here indefinitely, even though we know we can't keep them in custody, so, errrrr, yes, they'll be out on the street.

There are two possibilities for an additional thought: (4a.) We know that nothing bad will happen when they're out on the street, because they'll be grateful for the compassion we've shown and thus will start living peaceful and law-abiding lives, albeit admittedly for the first time ever; or (4b.) Something bad might indeed happen, but (i) it doesn't matter, because it almost certainly won't happen TO US, and (ii) the most likely victims will be, ya know, Trailer Park Trash who might get a story in the Miami Herald, but our friends in the New York and Washington press will make sure it stays airbrushed in the Big Time Media we (and our contributors) care about.

I doubt you'll see WaPo or the NYTimes covering this.

We are two years out from the earthquake in Haiti. Hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and human capital have been provided with little appreciable benefit. How long will the Obama administration jeopardize the security of this country? There is little evidence that Haiti will be governable anytime soon.

Just so. Indeed, an alternative way to view this story is that it's merely the latest outcropping from the Administration's hell-bent determination to tax money away from people who earn it (working Americans) to give it to people who don't (corrupt Haitian politicians).

Viewed that way, it won't make any difference whether it's two years or twenty-two years. Your comment reminded me that the Administration is STILL doling out money to those styling themselves as "victims" of Hurricane Katrina, which happened a mere seven years ago.

People can't be expected to get back on their feet in SEVEN years?

Well, no, of course not -- not if everyone is viewed as a perpetual victim. The ideas of self-reliance and personal responsibilty simply do not exist in this Administration (a fact that also accounts for much of what its Justice Department does and refuses to do).

The difference in this case is that the results of this way of thinking are particularly graphic and particularly undeniable. Which is, as federalst points out, the reason they'll never see the light of day in the MSM (or will see it only after the story makes too much noise on the Internet).

Leave a comment