What U.S. Congress Should Do to Keep Our Streets Safe : Close procedural loopholes in the criminal justice system and abolish parole. If necessary, bring in the armed forces.
The most fundamental duty of any responsible government is public safety. No society can prosper, no business can operate without a basic level of personal security. In too many neighborhoods, however, people are trapped behind locked gates and afraid to open the front door. Middle-class residents of the San Fernando Valley and their children should not have to live like this.
I do not view poverty and social inequality as legitimate causes of criminal behavior, although we should certainly work to reduce such conditions. Poor people too know the difference between right and wrong and should be held to it. The best preventive program is not midnight basketball (which merely means your house may now be burgled at 2 a.m.) but a proper family, good values and a stake in the community through neighborhood schools and homeownership.
I am sorry for the maladjusted youth who is now a criminal. But my first concern is for the safety of law-abiding citizens. My wife should be able to drive to the market without worrying about her safety. My daughter should be able to go to school and focus on her education.
I propose specific steps we can and should take to combat crime:
* Abolish parole. We should simply abolish parole and time off for good behavior (criminals are in jail because of their bad behavior). Keeping criminals in jail may be expensive, but letting them out causes even more damage. A huge proportion of crimes are committed by a small group of repeat offenders who should be kept locked up. Sometimes “three strikes” may be too many if the second or third strike might be you or your family.
* Address juvenile crime. Juveniles should be treated like adults if they commit adult crimes. It is also high time we fought gangs as what they are--organized crime--with much greater cooperation between local law enforcement and federalagencies. To reduce juvenile crime in the first place, we need welfare reform and a renewed stress on teaching children right from wrong and responsibility for individual behavior. Just as we must reform the criminal justice system to discipline, we must reform the social and school systems to instill values.
* Reform criminal law. Federal law should be changed so that convicted murderers and other criminals can no longer block justice with endless appeals and delays. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that excuses the Menendez brothers and turns the O. J. Simpson case into a circus. We need to focus on the search for truth, not procedural technicalities or bogus psychological arguments.
* Make national security assets available to fight crime. We Americans spend $263 billion a year on national security, including equipment, computers and military police. Let’s make some of those resources available to local law enforcement authorities if they want them. Before we send the Army to disarm bandits in Somalia and Haiti, maybe we ought to do the same here.
* Stop illegal immigration. A quarter of California’s violent felons are illegal aliens. Although my opponent, Anthony Beilenson, is now claiming credit for the provision in the recent crime bill to reimburse California for their costs, the proposal came from me in the governor’s office, and Beilenson gave it away by agreeing to delay reimbursement until the year 2004. In fact, he recently introduced legislation calling for sensitivity training for the Border Patrol and voted against a tracking system for illegal alien felons and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Unfortunately, the “crime bill” just passed in Congress will make none of these needed changes. The “100,000 police” the bill promises to put on the street are a fiction, since the federal funding is only a 20% matching grant. The bill’s greatest failure is its refusal to impose real gun control--mandatory minimum sentences for the use of a gun in a crime. My opponent voted against it at the same time he was voting for the use of racial quotas in the death penalty.
In fact, our congressman voted against every meaningful amendment to the crime bill that would have given it real teeth, including the death penalty for murders committed during a sexual assault and increased sentences for assaults on the elderly. Contrary to what he is now telling us, the incumbent has a long record of being soft on crime. He opposes the death penalty, supported Rose Bird and according to the Los Angeles Times “consistently gets good reviews from such left-leaning groups as . . . the ACLU.”
By contrast, I campaigned against Rose Bird, have sought vigorous and fair enforcement of the death penalty and have a long record of advocating tougher controls on crime.
As a result I have been endorsed by Sheriff Sherman Block, the California State Police, the California Reserve Peace Officers Assn., former L.A. Police Chief Ed Davis, Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Robert Philibosian and anti-gang activist Chuck Jordan.
Crime will be my No. 1 focus in Congress. This is the area of greatest difference between myself and the incumbent. In the past, he has said that crime is a state problem. I think it’s everyone’s problem until we can walk down the street and our kids can go to school without fear of violence.