Democrats need to get tough on crime

Low tolerance for crime is essential for a free society.

The North Carolina legislature is back in town to pass a new crime bill. Democrats should get on board. Crime is rising as a top concern of voters and ignoring it could lead to electoral peril. Besides, most of the provisions make sense.

The bill comes in response to the murder of a young Ukrainian refugee, Iryna Zarutska, on the light rail in Charlotte. The killer was a repeat offender with very obvious mental health problems. He shouldn’t have been on the street and the fact that he was highlights weaknesses in our justice system.

I want to give a shoutout to two fellow North Carolina Substackers. Bryan Anderson at Anderson Alerts has good breakdown of the bill. Conservative columnist Andrew Dunn of Longleaf Politics has a thoughtful column on what it should do and why. Bryan may be the best reporter covering the legislature right now. Andrew is my favorite conservative columnist in the state, offering balanced and nuanced views on politics.

For the last 60 years or so, Democrats have usually found themselves on the wrong side of the crime issue. Their knee-jerk reaction is to look for underlying causes of crime instead of focusing on individual victims of crime. I’m probably guilty of that perspective. In most people, violent crimes just provoke fear.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have a long history of exploiting crime for political gain, often tying it to racial stereotypes. Donald Trump launched his first campaign in 2015 calling Hispanic immigrants rapists and murderers. George H. W. Bush made crime the central issue of his 1988 campaign with the infamous Willie Horton ad. I think they’re doing the same thing with Iryna Zarutska, even if the bill has merit and addresses some problems that Republicans have exacerbated by cutting funding for district attorneys, mental health, and public safety.

That said, Democrats need to be tougher on crime in general. The only way to live in a free society is to keep people safe from violence against their person or property. People must be able to do what they want, say what they want, and go where they want without fear of violence. Those who violate those freedoms need to be removed from society swiftly and punished severely.

That’s the trade off in a free society—fewer rules restricting our activities, but harsher penalties for people who break them, especially if they use or threaten violence. Penalties should be swift and severe enough to serve as a deterrence. We need to create a culture of respect for other people’s beliefs, property, and actions.

Politically, Democrats need to take crime off of the table as a potential wedge issue. Support for tough on crime legislation will better allow them to oppose other infringements on our freedom like troops in the streets. Bill Clinton learned that lesson with his 1994 crime bill. Within two years, the issue had little resonance with voters.

Finally, the country needs to come together around something. Finding common ground around deterring violent criminals seems like a good place to start. Nobody wants more Iryna Zarutska or Charlie Kirk murders. Maybe if Democrats and Republicans can find common ground in keeping violent people off the street, they can begin reaching consensus on other matters. I’m ready to fight about taxes and regulations again.