Horowitz: Michigan ‘prosecutor’ considering release of 90 convicted murderers

Anyone who still thinks “criminal justice reform” is about leniencies only for first-time, nonviolent offenders, take stock of what yet another liberal prosecutor is contemplating.

Last week, the Lansing City Pulse reported that Ingham County district attorney Carol Siemon “this year plans to begin a formal review of the 90 convicted murderers serving life in prison without parole in Ingham County.”

“While I personally believe there are some people who should be in prison forever, like the Jeffrey Dahmer type of people, I just don’t believe in the death penalty,” Siemon explained. “I think life in prison without parole functions in a similar way, and I think everyone should have an opportunity to be able to get out some day.”

Siemon is part of a growing trend of deep blue cities electing “progressive” prosecutors, often with the help of Soros-funded NGOs, to promote what they call “restorative justice.” Siemon publicly stated what, clearly, most of them privately believe. Their opposition to the death penalty is not born out of some sort of altruistic pro-life view. Keeping murderers alive in prison opens the door to ultimately releasing them, eventually doing away with life sentences the same way they have essentially done away the death penalty as a common practice in almost every state.

“It’s not whether or not they’re innocent,” Siemon said in an interview with City Pulse. “We’re not saying that. But if they committed a homicide 40 years ago, who are they now? And do they deserve another chance? To my knowledge, nobody else is doing this type of thing in the state. It has just been something rolling around in my head.”

No regard for second chances for victims, of course.

This speaks to the big lie about over-incarceration. Most people locked up are in prison for violent crime or have a substantial criminal history. They were already on their second, third, or 40th chance by the time they were put away for many years. That’s built into the system. Most criminals are already under-charged and under-sentenced for their crimes as it is. This is why, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of murder convicts serve less than 10 years in prison, while only 30 percent serve more than 20 years. Thus, anyone serving a life sentence deserves it by a mile.

As the City Pulse interview reveals, Siemon already under-convicts criminals relative to what they do. Even the people originally arrested for first-degree crimes, such as murder or robbery, can now plead down to second-degree offenses, which dramatically reduces prison time, even before factoring in all of the early release opportunities. This is why we see every day so many criminals with serious arrests and even convictions who barely served time over the course of a 20-year criminal career.

The effort to release the worst offenders is now a growing trend throughout the country. As I reported, Virginia Democrats are working on legislation to release many murderers and rapists when they turn 50 or 55 and are also working on restoring gun rights to juveniles convicted of murder (while infringing on gun rights of law-abiding citizens.)

Something is wrong when there are only a few people with a voice in public policy speaking out against this. Almost every “conservative” and libertarian organization is now pushing “criminal justice reform,” without defining what it is, other than hiding behind the banal talking point of the need not to over-incarcerate “low-level, first-time offenders.”

However, if they really believe that, why are they not just as passionately opposing the growing successful trend in almost every blue state, and now even red states, to release violent repeat offenders? Why are Koch-funded organizations, such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, so gun-shy when it comes to calling out those who are seemingly tainting their supposed version of reform? They don’t seem too concerned about the Soros agenda of releasing even violent prisoners. Which raises the question: What exactly is their agenda of “conservative” reform?

Shapiro: The scientific experts who hate science

This week, the American Psychological Association proved once again that it is a political body rather than a scientific one. This isn't the first time a major mental health organization has favored politics over science — in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association famously reclassified "gender identity disorder" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, calling it "gender dysphoria" and then explaining that living with the delusion that you are a member of the opposite sex is not actually a mental disorder at all.That ruling was based on zero scientific evidence — much like the original DSM-5 classification of pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" before it was renamed "pedophilic disorder" under public pressure.

The latest example of the American Psychological Association's political hackery concerns the topic of "traditional masculinity." In the APA journal, it announced that it had released new guidelines to "help psychologists work with men and boys." Those guidelines suggest that "40 years of research" show that "traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly." The APA explains that "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors."

Never mind that traditional masculinity — a masculinity geared toward channeling masculine instincts of building and protecting, rather than tearing down — built Western civilization and protected it from the brutalities of other civilizational forces. Never mind that traditional masculinity protected femininity and elevated women to equal status in public policy. Traditional masculinity is actually just men sitting around and eating burgers while grunting at one another about football, all the while crying on the inside because they have been prohibited by society from showing their feelings.

And it's worse than that. According to the APA, traditional masculinity bumps up "against issues of race, class and sexuality," maximizing both interior and exterior conflict. Dr. Ryon McDermott, a psychologist from the University of South Alabama who helped draft the new APA guidelines, suggested that gender is "no longer just this male-female binary." Rather, gender is a mere social construct that can be destroyed without consequence. Here's the APA making the extraordinarily dishonest statement that gender differences aren't biological at all, in contravention of all known social science research: "Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectations, there isn't much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women."

Destroy masculinity in order to destroy discrimination and depression. Feminize men, and indoctrinate boys.

In order to reach this conclusion, the APA has to define traditional masculinity in the narrowest, most negative terms possible — and then other those who disagree as part of the patriarchy. But as a political body, the APA has little problem doing this.

All of this is not only nonsense; it's wildly counterproductive nonsense. Buried beneath the reams of nonsense in the APA report is this rather telling gem: "It's also important to encourage pro-social aspects of masculinity. ... In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial." But we must never suggest that such traits ought to be included as part of a "traditional masculinity," because that would make some people feel excluded.

Here's the truth: Men are looking for meaning in a world that tells them they are perpetuators of discrimination and rape culture; that they are beneficiaries of an overarching, nasty patriarchy; that they are, at best, disposable partners to women, rather than protectors of them. Giving men purpose requires us to give them purpose as men, not merely as genderless beings. There's a lot to be said for the idea that our culture has ignored the necessity for men to become gentlemen. But that's a result of a left-wing culture that denigrates men, not a traditional masculinity built on the idea that men were born to defend, protect and build.

One thing is certainly true, though: The APA has destroyed itself on the shoals of politics. And there's no reason for honest-thinking people to take its anti-scientific pronouncements seriously simply because it masquerades as scientists while ignoring facts in favor of political correctness.

Editor's note: This article has been corrected to state that it was the American Psychiatric Association, not the American Psychological Association, that reclassified "gender identity disorder."

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Keep reading...Show less