A few days ago, Scott Greenfield pointed out this paragraph in a New York Times article about Obama’s thinking about law and justice:
[W]hen it came to sentencing laws, Mr. Obama led [student Adam] Bonin in a more conservative direction than the student had expected. The primary victims of black criminals were fellow blacks — and so minority neighborhoods had an interest in keeping sentencing laws tough, he taught.
How is it that so many people—including smart people with experience in the inner city like Barack Obama—can talk about victims and sentencing and not notice that an awful lot of tough sentences are imposed for crimes that have no victims? Is that distinction—which looms so large in my own world view—just of concern for libertarians? Does everyone else really think the absence of victims makes no difference?
It’s like being in one of those horror movies where only I can see that the mysterious strangers have horns and fangs. Can anybody out there hear me screaming?
Mark,
I am no libertarian, but I share your concerns over the zealous prosecution of victimless crimes as well as over-reaching laws such as emminent domain.
Your blog does a service by making people more aware of these types of things. You’ve certainly opened my eyes a number of times.
I see the horns and fangs. Keep screaming.
Gary
Hah! Thanks, Gary.