Ben Crump says ending crime in US as easy as changing ‘definition of crime’; Dr Swain says that’s ‘l

[rangerrebew]

Ben Crump says ending crime in US as easy as changing ‘definition of crime’; Dr Swain says that’s ‘ludicrous’
Civil rights attorney's messaging to Black Americans is 'false' and 'problematic,' says Carol Swain
Teny Sahakian By Teny Sahakian Fox News
Published February 21, 2024 6:30am EST | Updated February 20, 2024 8:49pm EST
 

Ben Crump says ending crime in US as easy as changing ‘definition of crime.’ Dr Swain says that’s ‘ludicrous’
Civil rights attorney Ben Crump saying that U.S. laws target Black culture and to end crime you must redefine what are considered crimes is "ludicrous," said Dr. Carol Swain.

A prominent civil rights attorney suggesting that the U.S. justice system creates laws "to criminalize Black culture" and crime could be eradicated if they "change the definition of crime" is "problematic" and "ludicrous," said legal scholar and political scientist Dr. Carol Swain.

"We need laws to be obeyed, and we need a public that's informed. And under no circumstances should we redefine crime so that it isn't crime," Swain told Fox News. "Are we going to redefine murder? Are we going to redefine rape? No, we don't want to go down that path."

Ben Crump says ending crime in US as easy as changing ‘definition of crime.’ Dr Swain says that’s ‘ludicrous’Video
 
To commemorate Black history and culture, MSNBC aired a special on Feb. 4 titled "Black Men in America: Road to 2024." In one part of the program, a group of men including MSNBC contributor Charles Coleman Jr., Rev. Al Sharpton and civil rights attorney Ben Crump are discussing police brutality and the criminal justice system under President Biden while playing pool.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ben-crump-says-ending-crime-us-easy-changing-definition-crime-dr-swain-says-thats-ludicrous

[rustynail]

It's not a crime if 'they' do it?

[goatprairie]

Out of the slimy piehole of Ben Crud? Enough said. Change the definition of a crime? Absolute lunacy.

[The_Reader_David]

Well, there are two classes of crimes -- malum prohibitum (e.g. loitering, drug possession) and malum in se (e.g murder, rape, armed robbery).  Rescinding the laws against the first would decrease crime and allow the deployment of more police resources against the latter, thereby also decreasing crime.  Folks who self-identify as libertarians tend to favor this approach, and there are arguments in favor of removing laws that criminalize acts without any identifiable victim.

Of course, one could "end crime" by abolishing all criminal law.  The effect would be a proliferation of evil deeds, but they would not be crimes any more.

[roamer_1]

Just like legalizing drugs.
See? Just like that...
No more addiction...
No more crime to support a non-existent addiction.
And the stats prove it.

Fixed. 

[goatprairie]

Just like legalizing drugs.
See? Just like that...
No more addiction...
No more crime to support a non-existent addiction.
And the stats prove it.

Fixed. 

Yeah, the whole legalizing drugs effort was supposed to make things a lot better. Portland, Oregon liberals certainly thought so. They legalized or decriminalized many types of "recreational" (love that adjective) drugs.
But now the city is beset with drug-related problems.
I'm not advocating putting people in prison for smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke, but the facts are that if make something easier for people to procure, the result might not be what you desired.

[Free Vulcan]

U.S. laws target Black culture

Dude you need to pull your head out and look around. Blacks are a dwindling minority in our open border melting pot. You're sitting there trying to grab-and-gimme because 'the Man's oppressin' me' like we're still back in the separate fountains Jim Crow 50's. All that has went up in vapor, and you're just trying to be the minority at the top of the heap and keep everyone else under your boot as your piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller.

[LMAO]

Yeah, the whole legalizing drugs effort was supposed to make things a lot better. Portland, Oregon liberals certainly thought so. They legalized or decriminalized many types of "recreational" (love that adjective) drugs.
But now the city is beset with drug-related problems.
I'm not advocating putting people in prison for smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke, but the facts are that if make something easier for people to procure, the result might not be what you desired.

Agree

[roamer_1]

Yeah, the whole legalizing drugs effort was supposed to make things a lot better. Portland, Oregon liberals certainly thought so. They legalized or decriminalized many types of "recreational" (love that adjective) drugs.
But now the city is beset with drug-related problems.
I'm not advocating putting people in prison for smoking a joint or snorting a line of coke, but the facts are that if make something easier for people to procure, the result might not be what you desired.

And there it is.
The whole sweep-it-under-the-rug mentality would be hilarious if it were not so dire.

And as an aside, Portland serves as an evidence in an argument that should be taking place between Conservatives and 'big L' Libertarians - Drug legalization being a major sticking point between them...
I'd like to see that argument (in the debate vernacular) take place. It is certainly a milestone experiment in that fashion.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Narcotics were not illegal at the turn of the century, 1900.

They were made illegal because of the crime, addiction, and lost productivity they caused.

[SZonian]

 so...if I understand this clown correctly, necklacing or hacking someone to pieces is "culture" and should be "de-criminalized.

[DefiantMassRINO]

 

Why did the Man persecute Jeffrey Dahmer for his culture?

Surely, cannibal culture is valid as every other culture.  America becoming a cannibal nation would solve many problems, for the ones that aren't eaten by cannibals.

[Fishrrman]

rusty hits the nail on the head with:
"It's not a crime if 'they' do it?"

A post I put up right here on July 1, 2020:
===============================
Next up:
Lowered penalties for assault and rape when the perpetrator is "of color" and the victim is... white.

We are approaching a future in which "persons of color" who commit serious crimes will face few penalties at all, and if convicted will serve little or no jail time since they are "of the oppressed".

At the same time, a white who so utters a disparaging word about race or anything at all that "offends" those of color will face jail terms of years for merely speaking out.

And even though the death penalty will have been abolished for "those of color", it will still be imposed upon whites for "racist" crimes and behavior.

Source:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,407004.msg2241037.html#msg2241037

Who was right?

[goatprairie]

Dude you need to pull your head out and look around. Blacks are a dwindling minority in our open border melting pot. You're sitting there trying to grab-and-gimme because 'the Man's oppressin' me' like we're still back in the separate fountains Jim Crow 50's. All that has went up in vapor, and you're just trying to be the minority at the top of the heap and keep everyone else under your boot as your piece of the pie gets smaller and smaller.

That multi-billion dollar (or was it trillion) dollar reparations check is right around the corner. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well, there are two classes of crimes -- malum prohibitum (e.g. loitering, drug possession) and malum in se (e.g murder, rape, armed robbery).  Rescinding the laws against the first would decrease crime and allow the deployment of more police resources against the latter, thereby also decreasing crime.  Folks who self-identify as libertarians tend to favor this approach, and there are arguments in favor of removing laws that criminalize acts without any identifiable victim.

Of course, one could "end crime" by abolishing all criminal law.  The effect would be a proliferation of evil deeds, but they would not be crimes any more.

There is a significant link between drug use and the commission of other crimes even in those jurisdictions where possession is legal.

I do have an affinity for the libertarian position on drugs, But the problem with the libertarian position in our current society is that people are not required to suffer the negative consequences of their own poor decisions.  Instead, the rest of societies expected to provide some form of food and shelter for those who have effectively disabled themselves by becoming chronic drug users. They also are considered entitled to treatment and counseling at taxpayer expense.

If we're going to go the legalization route, then we have to be willing to let people die in the gutter, and impose severe penalties for other crimes drug users may commit to support themselves and their habit. I'm perfectly willing to do that, but voters/society aren't.

So what we end up with is people legally engaging in self-destructive drug habits, and then the rest of society being on the hook to bail them out.