After the State of the Union, I once again started hearing the argument that Iryna Zarutska’s murder is being “politicized.” This is a misuse of the term that I want to address.
You cannot politicize something that is already by its nature a political issue. We seek political redress to the cause of the murder because it is unavailable through any other means. We seek a change in the criminal justice system that will culminate in isolating from society people with a lengthy history of arrests. This is not unprecedented. California had a very successful three-strikes law that, before it was effectively destroyed, provided a life sentence for the third felony crime whatever it was, even if that crime by itself did not merit a life sentence.
The issue now is whether it is justified to impose a life sentence on people who represent a habitual danger to society. Before murdering Iryna, Decarlos Brown had been arrested 14 times. Was that enough to put him in jail permanently? What about criminals with 30 arrests? 40 arrests? Should there be a limit on how much disorder at the hands of a single individual society is willing to tolerate?
It’s not unreasonable to argue that no, there shouldn’t be a limit, and every crime should be treated in isolation from what preceded it. It is also not unreasonable to argue the opposite. This is a discussion that must happen because it’s crucial to the life of the polity. Thus, by its nature it’s political.
Let’s abandon the approach that some things should not be discussed and should be left outside the realm of political discourse. Silencing concern does not lead in a good direction.
Clarissa's Blog 