Helping criminals

The Editors at the New York Times are concerned about crime:

Two horrifying crimes have exposed serious weaknesses in Connecticut’s criminal justice system. But a “three strikes and you’re out” law proposed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Republicans in the Legislature would do more harm than good.

Last July two recently paroled men broke into a home in Cheshire and tortured and murdered three people. Last month a man who served more than eight years for assaulting a 5-year-old — and had been out on probation for less than a month — broke into a New Britain home. He accosted two women, wounding one and killing the other.

Republicans, led by Ms. Rell, have responded by calling for a “three strikes” law. Democrats have rightly resisted. The proposed law, which would mandate life in prison for anyone convicted of three violent felonies, is a bumper-sticker solution that would create injustices by barring judges’ discretion in sentencing. It would also not deter the many crimes committed by people who have not committed three violent felonies.

At preventing crime, three strikes laws are highly effective: no criminal can victimize innocent citizens while he is incarcerated under a three strikes law. But, of course, the editors at the New York Times are concerned not about innocent victims but rather
about quixotic projects like providing "jobs training" to career criminals.

Hat tip: BotW .

PREVIOUSLY, the liberal paradox of crime was discussed here, and pro-crime liberalism was discussed here, here, and here.