Where Does the ‘Soft-on-Crime’ Mentality Stem From?

Protestors are seen during a Voice for Victims community group rally in Brisbane, Australia, on Aug. 23, 2023. AAP Image/Darren England

Commentary

Anger over youth crime rates has been heating up.

Western Australian residents have petitioned their government to take action in the Kimberley area where the violent crime rate is 17 times greater per capita than in metropolitan Perth.

The Queensland government has been sharply condemned by the national children’s commissioner for allowing young offenders to be detained at police watchhouses, alleging that “there is no evidence to support tougher penalties.”

There is an increasing gulf between those who are personally affected by the growing incidence of youth crime and seek firm action against it and those who often seem to be in denial about the seriousness of the problem.

Differences in attitude reflect socio-anthropological beliefs.

There are those who believe that bad adolescent behaviour stems from poor parenting and that punishment may be an appropriate response, as well as a disincentive to further offending. These people are at odds with others who stress the victimhood of offenders—and of their parents.

There is truth in both propositions, but too little balance in appraising them. We tend to direct our anger against either the offender or the more abstract forces in a “society” that has failed them.

Who Is Left and Who Is Right?

How does this split arise and how can we resolve it?

The prevailing view on the left is that all people are innately good but that social malaises such as racism, toxic masculinity, financial greed, and political ambition corrupt them.

In this view, offenders and their families are victims of social forces that overwhelm them and force them, almost unwittingly, into criminal acts.

People who accept that view of the world are prone to sympathise more with the “victimhood” of the perpetrators than with the actual victims of their crimes. Their emphasis is more on rights than responsibility.

Passengers were seated here when a rock was thrown at the side of a Brisbane City Council bus by youths. This occurred Jan. 13, 2023, at 5:40 p.m. Courtesy of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union

On the other side, there is a conviction (no doubt attributable in part to traditional religious teachings) that human beings are fundamentally good, though prone to corruption.

Christianity is still the basis of the morality of a majority of Australians, even of those who are no longer believers, and its doctrine on this point is both complex and clear: the whole physical world including humanity is essentially good.

But humans have a tendency towards selfishness and greed (the technical name for this is “original sin”) which inclines them towards acts of self-indulgence, even at the expense of others. In some cases, this results in deeds of great evil.

But very importantly, Christianity teaches that each individual is held responsible by God for his or her own actions; they cannot be entirely imputed to or blamed on the actions of others, or on external, societal pressures.

To blame society for everything is, in the Christian view, unjust and irresponsible.

Other major religions such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism generally closely concur on this, though a difference is that the last two do not place value just on this physical world.

Beliefs such as reincarnation are closely linked to the notion that this physical world is transient, that people can be re-born on higher (or lower) planes, and that the final end of creation is to be released from all its physical bonds.

Such a view is markedly different from the first three (often called “religions of the book”) that accord a high place to material reality—and think it redeemable.

Some Believe Personal Responsibility Is Not a Factor

Ideas have consequences. Readers will, I hope, excuse that excursion into theology and philosophy, but it explains a lot.

Religious people, including those who are not themselves religious but have inherited a moral system based on religion, usually believe that people must accept at least partial responsibility for their crimes, without excluding external influences. So active legal deterrents, tough disincentives, and even punishment are all appropriate responses.

By contrast, the Left lives in a dream world. Despite massive evidence to the contrary—we don’t have to look beyond the wars of the 20th century for that—the Left insists that all people are good and that social structures are solely responsible for all kinds of deviancy.

It would be nice if it were true. But it’s not, and the consequences are dire.

A window is shattered at a Timberland store along Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Ill., after it was looted on Aug. 10, 2020. Scott Olson/Getty Images

Bad parenting is perhaps the worst. If your child can do no wrong no correction or chastisement is necessary.

It’s always the fault of the teacher, or of the police, or of the rich people he stole from, or a business owner, or the government.

And the corollary of that sort of thinking is that your child is always right. His bad ideas are really good ideas, his poor school work is really pretty good, his opinions deserve respect no matter how silly and ignorant they are, and—here’s a big issue at present—his choice of gender is an entitlement.

Fuzzy thinking is ruining us. We hear so often that a young person has been “born in the wrong body” and needs to transition to another gender.

That kind of thinking is—at a pinch—plausible for a person who believes in the transmigration of souls, but it’s impossible for a Christian or a Muslim who thinks that you are your body and that your body defines you—or for an atheist who doesn’t believe in the soul at all!

Something similar happens in the case of those who “identify” as Aboriginal on the basis of no, or very little, Aboriginal DNA. Such claims must be right, because there’s no such thing as wrong, in this crazy world of self-indulgent victimhood.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.