Douglas vs. Crotts on Gang Problems
Incumbent State Sen. John Douglas (R-Social Circle), Mike Crotts (R-"Covington") are vying for the District 17 Senate seat in the state legislature. See the recent Herald acticle here.
These quotations speak to the mindset of each candidate:
Douglas - "I think zero tolerance is a good solution to the gang problem. With the city, county and state working together, we can eliminate that problem, but we have to be serious about it. Gang members need to know about the serious consequences [associated] with participating in gang activity.This shows the age old difference in ideas of how to deal with gangs. The Henry County schools have hired diversity trainers and held open houses. They want to ask Johnny "how he feels" and discuss how society has failed him.Crotts - My responsibility is to work with local officials and public safety to educate the public on the situation. [Crotts said he] would ensure funding for educational programs, and reach out to children at a young age, before they become curious about gangs.
There are many personal and family-related issues that push a person into illegal or antisocial behavior. However, it is not a proper role of government to be anyone's parent, priest, rabbi, or guidance counselor. These are societal functions best provided through non-tax funded avenues.
Henry County government recently demonstrated the correct approach in regard to Mathis' back-door attempt tp create a Life Management department. The board as a whole left alone the funding allocated for the Juvenile Court system, and placed before the judges the opportunity to seek funding for any specialized programs on an individual, as needed basis. The Juvenile Court judges, who face such problems daily, were given the roles of (1) determining need for such programs, and (2) requesting funding from taxpayers' pockets. Both the commissioners and judges agreed that government should not 'manage" anyone's life.
Comments
Larry
I agree with nearly everything you said - especially the part about how government isn't our priest rabbi etc.
BUT (and like mine this is a big BUT) if you are suggesting that Douglas' rhetoric on this topic is acceptable, then you and I part ways. Read Douglas' quote. Tell me how that does not smack of restricting the freedom of association? We already have conspiracy laws that make one co-conspirator liable for the criminal actions of another. We already have criminal laws which make accomplices as liable as the main criminal actors.
These ridiculous "zero tolerance" laws are really "zero thought" laws. Any politician who suggests that a person's membership in a gang should be punishable should be scutinized especially closely - he is likely not a lover of liberty and is probably willing to say what is necessary to get elected - regardless of the violence it does to the freedoms endowed to us by our Creator.
Posted by: Green Death | June 12, 2008 05:36 PM
Green Death, I agree with you 100% on your interpretation of Zero Tolerance. We can all cite examples of political correctness gone wild.
When I have talked with Sen. Douglas on this issue I believed he meant no tolerance for illegal activity. Based on other conversations and his personality I cannot believe he is interested in depriving such basic personal liberties.
I will ask him this specific question. But I read his words "gang activity" to mean the antisocial and often illegal rights of passage in such groups.
Posted by: Larry Stanley | June 12, 2008 05:44 PM
I am aware that someone borrowed my posting name. Thanks to Jason for removing the post.
Anyone who has read this blog knows of my support for Senator Douglas. That support will not waiver nor weaken. By the way I borrowed the name but only after 200 years had past since the last use by the original Publius.
Posted by: Publius V. | June 12, 2008 06:22 PM
The author quotes a single comment from both candidates. Crotts offers a solution (though I may disagree) while Douglas offers more rhetoric, no solution, just the tough guy approach. Anyone who even uses the phrase "Zero tolerance" anything is pandering for fools.
Basically Larry, I disagree with your assesment that these two small quotes are indicative of the views of these two candidates. Unless you agree with me that Douglas is pushing more empty rhetoric?
But again, how much can you learn of one's "mindset" by a single quote? Not a lot.
Posted by: Danny | June 13, 2008 10:50 AM