Growing old's like being increasingly penalized for a crime you haven't committed.
The penalty may be removed, the crime is eternal.
Like with all other crime, we must, of course, treat the perpetrators of these actions as the criminals they are. But unlike with the vast majority of other crime, justice is not delivered simply by punishing the perpetrator. This is because the harm associated with domestic violence extends far beyond the point of contact.
The infectiousness of crime is like that of the plague.
Reactive and proactive policing are both necessary. Still, we need to lower expectations that such efforts can ever be responsive to crime.
Maybe... there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for unlawfully detaining 120 people. Maybe they just got carried away with last year's idea of pre-emptive strikes and thought, 'Let's not wait for an actual crime to occur. Let's get the innocent.
To be smart on crime, we should not be in a position of constantly reacting to crime after it happens. We should be looking at preventing crime before it happens.
If crime is going down, you shouldn't be increasing resources for crime prevention. Or you should be taking note of what has worked and concentrate the crime-prevention methods on policies that have a track record of success.
The prisoner is not the one who has commited a crime, but the one who clings to his crime and lives it over and over.
In order that punishment should not be an act of violence perpetrated by one or many upon a private citizen, it is essential that it should be public, speedy, necessary, the minimum possible in the given circumstances, proportionate to the crime, and determined by the law.
There are lots of procedural shows that I love, but I never really wanted to be a doctor on 'E.R.' - which I'm just picking as an example - or be on a crime procedural.
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.
'Getting smart on crime' does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crimes.
It's not crime that makes us more punitive in the United States. It's the way we respond to crime and how we view those people who have been labeled criminals.
You have a guy like Bernie Madoff literally steal $80 billion, you know, AIG steal hundreds of billions, Goldman Sachs. Crime has changed so much, and to really do a movie with, like, drug dealers or drug smugglers is kind of almost quaint at this point.
There is no scandal like rags, nor any crime so shameful as poverty.
New Jersey has decided that fewer handguns legally carried in public means less crime. It is obvious that the justifiable need requirement functions as a rationing system designed to limit the number of handguns carried in New Jersey.
I always felt that rap didn't cause crime; it just reflected it.
