Liberals Find Connection Between Crime Rates, Jail Terms

The front page of USA Today, 10/07/09, has a story about fewer rapes, primarily due to DNA evidence. [The dead tree edition proclaims "DNA is behind decline in rape reports," making it sound like there are fewer reports, while the website is titled, "Reported Rapes hits 20-year low."]

The most interesting paragraph in the article:

Use of DNA evidence has expanded gradually over the past 15 years and can put a rapist in prison the first time he's caught, preventing him from harming other women, Berkowitz says. Many rapists are repeat offenders.

Only a liberal would find it – literally – "Front Page News," that there is less crime if you imprison criminals. It can be debated how much of a deterrent effect harsher sentences have on crime rates – it would stay theoretical unless we actually tried it. I don't think anybody (not even a liberal) would deny that criminals in jail don't commit crimes against the public. I believe that the death penalty would be a deterrent to crime, if it was done quickly and consistently; however, not even a liberal would deny that a murderer who has been executed would not murder again.

Maybe it costs a lot of money to keep criminals in jail. First of all, where else would you want them? Secondly, how much more does it cost for them to run free?

- Ronald Rightside