What is the origin of the ‘soft-on-crime’ mindset?
Commentary
Anger over youth crime rates has been heating up.
Western Australian residents have petitioned their government to take action in the Kimberley area where the violent crime rate is 17 times greater per capita than in metropolitan Perth.
The Queensland government has been sharply condemned by the national children’s commissioner for allowing young offenders to be detained at police watchhouses, alleging that “there is no evidence to support tougher penalties.”
There is an increasing gulf between those who are personally affected by the growing incidence of youth crime and seek firm action against it and those who often seem to be in denial about the seriousness of the problem.
Differences in attitude reflect socio-anthropological beliefs.
There are those who believe that bad adolescent behaviour stems from poor parenting and that punishment may be an appropriate response, as well as a disincentive to further offending. These people are at odds with others who stress the victimhood of offenders—and of their parents.
There is truth in both propositions, but too little balance in appraising them. We tend to direct our anger against either the offender or the more abstract forces in a “society” that has failed them.
Who is Left and Who is Right?
How does this split arise and how can we resolve it?
The prevailing view on the left is that all people are innately good but that social malaises such as racism, toxic masculinity, financial greed, and political ambition corrupt them.
In this view, offenders and their families are victims of social forces that overwhelm them and force them, almost unwittingly, into criminal acts.
People who accept that view of the world are prone to sympathise more with the “victimhood” of the perpetrators than with the actual victims of their crimes. Their emphasis is more on rights than responsibility.
On the other side, there is a conviction (no doubt attributable in part to traditional religious teachings) that human beings are fundamentally good, though prone to corruption.
Christianity is still the basis of the morality of a majority of Australians, even of those who are no longer believers, and its doctrine on this point is both complex and clear: the whole physical world including humanity is essentially good.
But humans have a tendency towards selfishness and greed (the technical name for this is “original sin”) which inclines them towards acts of self-indulgence, even at the expense of others. In some cases, this results in deeds of great evil.
But very importantly, Christianity teaches that each individual is held responsible by God for his or her own actions; they cannot be entirely imputed to or blamed on the actions of others, or on external, societal pressures.
To blame society for everything is, in the Christian view, unjust and irresponsible.
Other major religions such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism generally closely concur on this, though a difference is that the last two do not place value just on this physical world.
Beliefs such as reincarnation are closely linked to the notion that this physical world is transient, that people can be re-born on higher (or lower) planes, and that the final end of creation is to be released from all its physical bonds.
Such a view is markedly different from the first three (often called “religions of the book”) that accord a high place to material reality—and think it redeemable.
Some Believe Personal Responsibility Is Not a Factor
Ideas have consequences. Readers will, I hope, excuse that excursion into theology and philosophy, but it explains a lot.
Religious people, including those who are not themselves religious but have inherited a moral system based on religion, usually believe that people must accept at least partial responsibility for their crimes, without excluding external influences. So active legal deterrents, tough disincentives, and even punishment are all appropriate responses.
By contrast, the Left lives in a dream world. Despite massive evidence to the contrary—we don’t have to look beyond the wars of the 20th century for that—the Left insists that all people are good and that social structures are solely responsible for all kinds of deviancy.
It would be nice if it were true. But it’s not, and the consequences are dire.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...