On the slaughter of Iryna Zarutska: Republicans pounce and the MSM doesn’t
I saw a link to an article about the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska back when it happened a couple of weeks ago, but I didn’t click on it because one can’t follow everything, and I figured it was a more “ordinary” murder (for example, boyfriend or stalker or robber), if any murder can be called ordinary. She was clearly a beautiful young woman and her murder a terrible crime and tragedy, but there wouldn’t be any particular reason to write a post about it.
Now that a horrifying surveillance video of the crime – which occurred on public transport in Charlotte, NC, and was an utterly unprovoked attack by a stranger who had a long history of crime and mental illness – has been released, it’s big news on the right but the MSM is still either ignoring it or using the “racist Republicans pounce!” angle.
The perp (Decarlos Brown, Jr.) is black and the victim white, but it’s the mental health element and the well-known dangerousness of the perp, plus the sudden switch to murderous action which happens in an instant, that gets the attention of the right. Crime is a big big issue; who on earth would want to defend such an action, or rationalize it away? The left, which says (among other things), oh, crime is down in Charlotte.
Who cares? We’ve come to be suspicious of such statistics, which can be easily manipulated by downgrading criminal acts, as happened in DC. But even beyond that, a statistic can be down from a previous high without being something people want to tolerate, and being stabbed and murdered on a local train by a perp who is a schizophrenic with a bad criminal history isn’t tolerable to most people.
Here’s the more common response:
The nightmarish video from Charlotte, N.C. of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska being murdered by a psychopath who was roaming freely thanks to the Democrats’ violent felon fetish is sickening and infuriating.
Of course, if the races of perp and victim had been reversed, you know that the left would have demanded the killer be treated very harshly and the crime would have been big big big news in the MSM.
For me, the questions are: what was the perp’s actual history? Could this crime have been predicted? Did his situation prior to this warrant much longer incarceration? And if so, where? What was the nature of his prior criminal acts? Were they violent? The answer to that last question is yes, they were:
Records obtained by The New York Post showed that Brown has a history of arrests going back more than a decade, including charges of felony larceny, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and communicating threats.
More [emphasis mine]:
Brown has been arrested a slew of times since 2011 for felony larceny, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and communicating threats, according to court records obtained by The Post.
He is homeless and served five years in prison for the robbery with a deadly weapon charge, according to WSOC-TV.
So he was in prison for at least one of the charges, and it was a significant sentence. How long can people with mental illnesses who have criminal records be kept behind bars? Should it be longer than their sentences, and should their incarceration be in a mental hospital, or a facility for the criminally insane (some still exist, although they’re now called “forensic psychiatric hospitals”)? It doesn’t seem that Brown was ever sent to one, but perhaps he should have been (see this for North Carolina’s facilities). It seems that someone – or many people -dropped the ball:
The alleged killer, however, currently has pending charges for misuse of the 911 system in January following a police welfare check — which revealed his troubling thoughts, the outlet [Charlotte Observer] reported.
Brown told authorities during the visit he believed someone had given him a “man-made” material that controlled when he ate, walked, and talked, an affidavit obtained by the newspaper said.
“Brown wanted officers to investigate this ‘man-made’ material that was inside of his body,” the affidavit said.
Officers then advised Brown that he was suffering a medical issue, and there was nothing more they could do to help him.
He became upset over their response and called 911. He was arrested after he hung up the phone, the outlet reported.
More [emphasis mine]:
His mother has said he was diagnosed with schizophrenia following his release from prison for an armed robbery conviction. She said the courts failed by allowing her son to be out in the community despite knowing about his previous criminal history and mental health issues.
Brown has past convictions for armed robbery, felony larceny, breaking and entering, and shoplifting, WBTV reported.
According to WSOC-TV reporter Joe Bruno, Brown’s mother said that she had her son evaluated when his behavior became aggressive. This followed his release from prison after he had served more than five years for armed robbery.
She got an involuntary commitment order and he was placed under psychiatric monitoring for two weeks and diagnosed with schizophrenia, Bruno wrote on X. She said that he became so aggressive after his release that she had to kick him out of her home, so he became homeless.
Apparently, she wanted him committed and he was “monitored” (whatever the consisted of) for two weeks. Then – nothing? It says “after his release” he became very aggressive – does that mean after his release from prison, or from the hospital? I think the former, and it doesn’t seem he was ever in a mental hospital, although it’s hard to tell.
I also seems he was never judged incompetent to stand trial [emphasis mine]:
Brown’s public defender had filed a motion [after the 911 arrest] questioning Brown’s “capacity to proceed” in the case. A judge then ordered a forensic evaluation, which was never done, Queen City News reported.
How much time had elapsed? Was it ever going to be done? More:
Randy Fine, a Republican, wrote on X: “I’m going to introduce legislation to hold judges accountable when violent repeat offenders they release commit new crimes. It’s easy to release criminals when you’re protected by an armed bailiff at all times. The rest of us aren’t so lucky. Those 12+ judges that released Decarlos Brown Jr. should have their day in court too.”
Elon Musk wrote on X: “Let’s change the law. Between now and then, name and shame the DAs and judges who enable murder, rape and robbery. But especially shame those who funded the campaigns of the DAs and judges. That will make the biggest difference.”
I disagree. You can’t expect them to be perfect prognosticators, even if a release seems egregious. And in this case, he wasn’t released early, and the judge later did order an evaluation. Why wasn’t it done in a timely fashion?
Liberty is important too. Where to draw the line is the question; it’s an old one and a difficult one. Funds are needed for all of this, too.
At least at present Brown was denied bond. And guess what? Maybe this time they really will evaluate him for competence to stand trial (which is very different, by the way, from not guilty by reason of insanity because it takes place before the trial):
Brown’s lawyer said he will file a motion for an evaluation of Brown’s competency to stand trial because of his “long history” of mental health issues, WSOC reported. Brown appeared for the brief hearing via video. He wore an orange jail uniform, a face mask and his right hand wrapped in gauze from an injury during the attack.
This is also a case that illustrates a failure to apply the broken windows approach. See this [emphasis mine]:
I spoke with District Attorney Spencer Merriweather this week. He is limited in what he can say about this particular case, but he made clear that the system is full of gaps. Repeat offenders who pile up “lower-level” charges can still cycle in and out. Defendants with severe mental illness can sometimes be released when they’re found incompetent to stand trial, even if everyone knows they’re a danger to the public. “It is unreal,” Merriweather told me. He’s right.
In the meantime, there are things to do immediately. I spoke with former Mayor Pat McCrory, who pioneered both transit and public safety over seven terms as mayor. He put it plainly: “Public safety has to be the No. 1 objective in transit, and it obviously is not.” When Charlotte chose not to install fare gates, it made a different bargain: enforce payment another way. Failing to do so creates an environment where rules don’t matter, turning trains and platforms into places to loiter, and in some cases, to prey. That culture of permissiveness has to end. Riders should know every person on that train has paid to be there. CMPD and CATS must post a visible security presence on platforms and trains. And judges must stop releasing violent offenders back into the community on little more than a promise.
A perfect storm that led to this heinous crime. RIP, Iryna Zarutska.
[NOTE: I’ve written previously about the history of the mental hospital de-institutionalization movement. Please see this.]
It’s difficult for me to respond calmly to this act. He was not in a position to kill this woman because the system “failed” him, and Neo, I know that you aren’t implying that, but many others are. It’s the media’s almost total disinterest (for political and racial reasons, I believe) in the case that has really bothered me. Career criminal thug George Floyd was made a hero, Daniel Penny was almost locked away for saving lives, and gangster wannabe Trayvon Martin was turned into an innocent teenager by this evil MSM we have in the US, and there are so many other examples. There are more than one common denominators, but a very real one is elite skittishness when faced with any connection between the black underclass and crime. In my opinion, that’s the real reason he was on that public transport rather than in prison.
Telemachus:
Well, the system actually DID fail the perp and his family – but the system failed Iryna Zarutska far far FAR more. And “the system” has many parts: blue cities soft on crime, the failure to effectively treat criminals who are mentally ill, the difficulty of actually treating any schizophrenic who might stop taking meds, the failure of the city of Charlotte to enforce fare requirements, the George Floyd brouhaha and Black Lives Matter and its lies and exploitative grifting (as well as the MSM’s cooperation with it), and on and on and on.
You can’t expect them to be perfect prognosticators, even if a release seems egregious.
________
I don’t have a case that something should apply to this case, but I do not see why it should be an absolute principle that judges (and politicians) be totally immune to repercussions when they are irresponsible in handling the trust that has been put in them. Sure, it’ll involve judgement calls, but then, the whole subject of crime and punishment does.
If nothing else, their immunity contributes to the increasing lack of trust in their integrity.
Eeyore:
They aren’t totally immune to repercussions. For example, there’s the judge that let the perps out the back door during a hearing. She is going to be tried.
However, the decisions we’re talking about in this post are quite different. Predicting future criminality is what we’re talking about here. That’s hard, and in this case the judge actually ordered a mental health evaluation. The problem is where to draw the line on judges’ decisions, and I think they can’t be held liable for not predicting future criminality.
It’s only a small percentage of criminals that commit most violent crime. The 80/20 rule is plenty predictive enough. Two violent felonies is already a strong predictor. There is no reason to let any such people back out; the risk to the public is so much higher than any potential benefit to the public. That’s why the “three strikes” laws were so popular.
Niketas:
Are you advocating life imprisonment for anyone with 2 violent felonies?
I don’t agree. Life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for that, plus it would cripple the prison system and would be unsustainable.
I agree, though, that this guy was a walking time bomb and he should not have been on the streets.
I do not see why it should be an absolute principle that judges (and politicians) be totally immune to repercussions
I agree completely. It doesn’t have to be based on one individual case, but on their track record over many cases. I have no doubt there are judges that are systematically lenient, and they should suffer consequences.
Was it Krauthammer who famously said that to understand the current political culture one must first understand that Republicans think Democrats are stupid, but Democrats think Republicans are evil?
Whoever said it, that’s changing. Republicans are beginning to see Democrats as evil.
@neo:Are you advocating life imprisonment for anyone with 2 violent felonies?
Could be three or could be four, I’m willing to listen to reasonable argument for or against a specific number. But it seems that above some number n we are in “fool me n times shame on me” territory.
Life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for that
Says who? That’s not a rhetorical question. Who gets to decide that and why does their decision override everyone else’s? You put that to a vote it will get like 80% saying it’s fair and reasonable. Anyone can make one mistake, or maybe two, but after two it looks more like a lifestyle choice. These guys aren’t Jean Valjean stealing bread to feed their starving children.
plus it would cripple the prison system and would be unsustainable.
Amply repaid by the vastly lowered rates of crime of all kinds, not just violent crimes, which would happen if those people were permanently removed from society, since they commit the majority of all crimes–they are already the vast majority of those in prison now.
But there’s no reason why we are limited to prison. Yes, I know there would be all kinds of lawfare if capital punishment were on the table, but people are getting less and less patient with leftist lawfare, and things are going to change, one way or another. N strikes is a start, but it won’t end there if relatively reasonable and relatively fair changes are not made, and innocent people continue to suffer. If things continue, “shut up and shovel” will be the order of the day, there will be a lot more dead criminals.
Mike Plaiss (6:00 pm):
“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”
— Charles Krauthammer
https://www.azquotes.com/author/8266-Charles_Krauthammer
https://quotefancy.com/charles-krauthammer-quotes
@M J R and Mike Plaiss:“Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”
That is the quote, but it’s empirically wrong. Liberals do think conservatives are stupid and evil. Conservatives do think that liberals are stupid and evil as well.
No need for three strikes laws. Award points for each criminal conviction, with the number of points a function of the severity of a given count. The points accumulated to date are an argument in a formula which calculates a multiple by which a standard sentence is enhanced.
==
The responsibility for expanding capacity in prisons and state asylums lies with the state legislature and (in regard to bond issues necessary) state electorates. The responsibility for re-composing the state penal code also lies with the state legislature. The task of ensuring ample prison capacity for every demographic subset of the convict population and properly segregating men from women, prisoners with a history of violent offenses from other prisoners, and prisoners in particular age ranges from each other also lies with the state legislature.
==
Any criminal offense (or, more broadly, public order offense) defined in the state penal code should carry incarceration or corporal punishment as the primary penalty with fines, restitution, and forfeiture as supplementary penalties. Offenses defined in other codes (local ordinances, the vehicle and traffic code, the tax code, the securities law, the environmental conservation law) might carry fines as a primary penalty. There should be no option for a judge to suspend a sentence. The use of probation should be limited to offenders under 25. Labor services should be applied if a convict weshes on his fines, restitution, and forfeitures and a levy on his locatable property is insufficient.
==
Bail or bond should be bog standard and preventive detention should be common. If the case is not processed, or the charges fall apart entirely, or the eventual sentence is less than time served in jail, you can indemnify the subject at a standard rate.
==
Preliminary hearings in front of a magistrate or panel of magistrates should suffice, with an adversary process in certain circumstances. No need to bother with grand juries. Have fact finding ratified in all cases in municipal courts and superior penal courts and leave family courts to make decisions on child custody, child support, guardianships, and adoptions.
==
Sentences should be determined by formulae specified in the code. If a formula contains arguments which must be specified by a factual determination in court, you can convene a sentencing hearing wherein a case is made by counsel in front of a panel consisting of a judge and two assessors and the assessors are drawn at random off of guild rolls of professions other than law. The standard sentence is then enhanced or diminished by multiples which result from three formulae: one calculated per his history of offenses, one in re his age, and one in re his type of plea. For younger offenders (i.e. under 25), a portion of the sentence of incarceration or corporal punishment might be remitted in favor of probation. There should not be any compunction about imprisoning juveniles so long as you keep them with their peers and away from others.
==
In lieu of the current parole system, you might for each convict convene a parole jury once an offender has served half his sentence and then annually thereafter. The jury would consist of a randomly selected panel of six prison system employees with field experience. They’d be handed a dossier of the convicts disciplinary record with all the names removed and replaced with code numbers and given a work day to make a determination on the basis of the convicts disciplinary record.
==
As for prisons, stop making them a locus of schooling and social work. Make them austere places where convicts spend most of their time in their cells, live on a bland but nutritious diet, and have no amenities other than an infirmary on the premises, a weekly change of linens and towels, blankets, library books, golf pencils, and writing pads. Showers are once a week under supervision and electric clippers are taken to your hair and beard once a week.
==
There must always be consequences, or its just a game.
==
Another thing you can do is place responsibility for law enforcement in (typically) multi-county sheriff’s departments and metropolitan police services. Municipal police should be limited to discrete small towns and meant to supplement the work of sheriff’s patrols. You have a police department covering (and financed by) the whole of a metropolitan settlement wherein manpower can be deployed optimally.
==
Democratic politicians do not wish to do these things. They presume the moral judgments of ordinary people, they presume agency on the part of offenders, they remove discretion from lawyers and other denizens of the professional managerial class, and they understand the object is punishment and not therapy. They also given no preferences to the Democratic Party’s mascot groups.
No need for sentences of ‘life’ imprisonment either. In assembling some sentences, the scalar formula resultant and time specified until a parole review is mandated will make some sentences a de facto life sentence. For a convict not due for parole for at least 50 years and having a history of being convicted of 1st degree murder, a capital sentence should be automatic. (No need to bother with veterinary methods; a rope or a firing squad in a public place will do).
Niketas Choniates (6:31 pm), I will cheerfully contend that the quote is by and large accurate >> as of the time Krauthammer issued his pronouncement <<.
Without a doubt, there were some conservatives who recognized earlier than most that liberals "were both stupid and evil as well." But for the most part (I contend), many/most conservatives until relatively recently regarded liberals as being merely mistaken.
For the better part, conservatives have only relatively belatedly come to the realization that liberals do *not* deserve a benefit of the doubt as to motive. Only belatedly have many/most conservatives been awakened to the palpable evil of the left — an evil that's not mere naivete or innocence, but is conscious, *ugly* malevolence.
——
And yes, "liberals do think conservatives are [both] stupid and evil." To be very honest, many conservatives' actions do tend to bear this out. No need to go there, is there?
Broken windows theory has solved this problem only when they broke the mirror we found ourselves here
Michael Whatley (R), running for the senate against former governor Roy Cooper (D), is already out with statements pointing to Cooper’s signing of a “racial justice” act in 2020 which granted early release to thousands of violent criminals, one of whom was this murderer.
neo on September 8, 2025 at 5:35 pm said:
Eeyore:
They aren’t totally immune to repercussions. For example, there’s the judge that let the perps out the back door during a hearing. She is going to be tried.
However, the decisions we’re talking about in this post are quite different. Predicting future criminality is what we’re talking about here. That’s hard, and in this case the judge actually ordered a mental health evaluation. The problem is where to draw the line on judges’ decisions, and I think they can’t be held liable for not predicting future criminality.
_________
I didn’t say they should be punished every time they’re wrong. But if the record is bad enough – and especially if it shows a clear bias – then why not?
I’m not crazy about “where do you draw the line” as an argument here. The whole area is a matter of where we decide to draw lines. And it would seem that we are now in a position where very many judges would seem to be entirely irresponsible. In other lines of work, people are held accountable more often than that. (Of course, I know perfectly well which profession writes most of the laws, so it’s idealistic to expect lawyers to be treated equally with the rest of us.)
At a minimum, throw them off the bench.
Eeyore:
I draw the line at punishing judges for failure to predict future criminal behavior.
I asked Grok AI for rules for women choosing seats in such situations.
In light of such circumstances on public transit like subways or light rail—where attacks can happen quickly and from behind—here are some practical, evidence-based safety rules for women (or anyone) when choosing seats. These draw from general transit safety guidelines from organizations like the National Transit Institute and women’s safety advocates, emphasizing visibility, proximity to help, and awareness:
— Prioritize seats near groups or other women: Opt for areas with multiple passengers, especially clusters of women or families, rather than isolated spots. In Zarutska’s case, the car was not crowded, which may have reduced immediate intervention. Sitting in a group can deter potential attackers and provide witnesses or helpers nearby.
— Choose forward-facing or side-facing seats with visibility: Avoid seats where your back is directly exposed to a lone individual behind you, particularly if they appear agitated or isolated. Instead, select seats facing the direction of travel or perpendicular to it, so you can monitor surroundings without turning. This reduces vulnerability to surprise attacks from behind, as seen in the incident.
— Position near exits, doors, or high-traffic areas: Sit close to train doors or the end of the car for quick escape if needed, but not so close that you’re blocked by others. High-visibility spots near conductors or cameras are ideal, as they increase the chance of rapid response.
— Assess fellow passengers before sitting: Scan for red flags like someone who seems overly intoxicated, aggressive, or avoiding eye contact, and avoid sitting directly adjacent or in front/behind them alone. If the car feels unsafe, wait for the next one or move cars at a stop.
— Stay alert and use technology: Keep headphones off or volume low, avoid deep phone engagement, and consider apps like transit safety trackers or emergency alerts. If something feels off, trust your instincts and relocate immediately.
These aren’t foolproof, but they can minimize risks in unpredictable environments like public transit. Always report suspicious behavior to transit staff or authorities promptly.
I asked Grok AI about the proper mindset in such situations.
A proper mindset for women (or anyone) navigating potentially risky situations like public transit involves a balance of vigilance, empowerment, and realism—focusing on proactive awareness rather than fear or victimhood. Drawing from self-defense principles (e.g., from experts like those at the National Self-Defense Institute or books like “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker), here’s a breakdown of key mental shifts that can enhance safety without overwhelming daily life:
1. Cultivate Situational Awareness (Stay Present, Not Paranoid)
— Shift from distraction to observation: Train yourself to scan your environment periodically—note exits, people nearby, and any unusual behaviors—without constantly looking over your shoulder. This “relaxed alertness” (a concept from security training) keeps you informed so you can respond early. For instance, in a subway car, mentally map who’s around you and their positions, as in the Zarutska case where isolation played a role.
— Avoid the “phone bubble”: Use your device mindfully; it’s a tool for emergencies (e.g., quick-dialing help), not an escape. A mindset of “I’m in control of my attention” helps you stay grounded.
2. Trust and Act on Your Instincts (Intuition as a Superpower)
— Embrace the “gut feeling” without second-guessing: If someone or a situation feels off—lingering stares, erratic movements, or an uneasy vibe—prioritize your discomfort and relocate or seek help immediately. De Becker emphasizes that fear is often a preemptive signal, not random anxiety. In transit scenarios, this could mean switching seats or cars at the next stop, even if it seems rude.
— Mindset mantra: “My safety comes first; I don’t owe explanations.” This empowers decisive action over politeness, which can sometimes delay responses in threats.
3. Adopt a Confident, Assertive Posture (Project Strength)
— Walk and sit with purpose: Maintain open body language—head up, shoulders back, eye contact with passersby—to deter opportunists who target those appearing vulnerable. Studies in criminology (e.g., from the FBI’s behavioral analysis) show that confident demeanor reduces perceived “easy target” status.
— Prepare mentally for confrontation: Visualize scenarios briefly (not obsessively) and rehearse simple responses, like a firm “back off” or using your voice as a weapon to attract attention. This builds resilience, turning potential fear into readiness.
4. Focus on Prevention and Preparedness (Proactive Over Reactive)
— Think in probabilities, not certainties: Random attacks like Zarutska’s are rare, but mindset-wise, accept that control is limited—focus on what you *can* influence, like your choices and reactions. Carry essentials (pepper spray where legal, a whistle, charged phone) and know local resources (e.g., transit apps with panic buttons).
— Build long-term resilience: Regular self-defense classes or mindfulness practices can foster a “survivor” outlook, reducing post-incident trauma by reinforcing that you’re capable and not helpless.
Ultimately, the goal is empowerment: Approach these situations with calm competence, viewing safety as a skillset rather than luck. This mindset not only protects you but also reduces unnecessary stress, allowing you to enjoy public spaces more freely. If you’d like resources for training or apps, let me know!
Anyone who objects to locking up these predatory savages for repeated felonies will really not like it when we revert to vigilante justice and the penalty for the first felony is death.
Art Deco, thanks for your detailed plan for criminal justice reform. “Labor services” sounds like chain gangs, etc. I like it!
I went to the NY Post story on the Zarutska murder and discovered just a few days ago there was another murder of a blonde woman by a black man.
Dr. Julie Gard Schnuelle, in Alabama was apparently stabbed to death by Harold Rashad Dabney III, who looked like he could have been Decarlos Brown’s younger brother. Dabney has been arrested on two counts of capital murder.
Dabney doesn’t seem to have been crazy. He stole her truck afterwards. Nor did he have as much of a record as Brown.
__________________________________
–“Pint-sized Auburn veterinary prof hacked to death by fiend while walking her dog in the park”
https://nypost.com/2025/09/08/us-news/auburn-vet-prof-julie-schnuelle-hacked-to-death-in-alabama-park/
–“Man charged with capital murder in attack of AU professor at Auburn’s Kiesel Park”
https://www.wrbl.com/news/montgomery-man-charged-with-capital-murder-in-attack-of-au-professor-at-kiesel-park/
I’d say America has hit another law and order moment. The cultural and political momentum is now on our side.
If you saw the video of the Cincinnati white woman being attacked, a councilwoman there said the white woman got what she deserved. That’s the black attitude.
That’s the black attitude.
==
I suspect a passably common attitude, not the attitude. Among non-blacks, it’s the sort of thing you might see among the more annoying inhabitants of higher education and the social work industry.
Judges should have two or three pieces of discretion over sentencing. (1) the decision on whether or not to approve a plea agreement, (2) one vote out of three on a judge-and-assessors panel convened to make factual determinations which are arguments in a sentencing formula, and (3) whether to apply corporal punishment in lieu of incarceration for certain categories of defendants. The function of the judge should be to act as referee between counsel and see to it that prescribed procedures are followed.
==
You cannot get away with judicial discretion over whether or not to send a case to trial, over whether or not to grant a motion to dismiss a count, and over whether or not to grant bail or bond.
Blame the system, not the perpetrator. Blame guns, not the shooter. This guarantees that you will get more of everything you want to deter. This is the result of adopting a therapeutic system of criminal jurisprudence where every evil act is excused on account of the perpetrator’s “mental state.” Sorry, but it’s time to return to punishing ACTIONS without regard to “mental state.” If a person commits a criminal act, that person must suffer consequences, not be excused for mental incapacity. Mental incapacity of the perpetrator should be only considered in terms of the place of incarceration, whether it is to be a standard prison or one designated for incarceration of mentally incapacitated criminals. The length of confinement should depend exclusively on the nature of the crime; murder should require life-long imprisonment, unless determined to be premeditated, which should require capital punishment. We have become so focused on being “fair” to the perpetrator that we have abandoned the necessity of protecting society and punishing the guilty. The point of criminal sanctions includes punishment and societal protection as well as “rehabilitation.” Sorry if this offends some delicate sensibilities, but it is clear that the pendulum has swung waaaaay too far and require corrective measures.
neo on September 8, 2025 at 8:08 pm said:
Eeyore:
I draw the line at punishing judges for failure to predict future criminal behavior.
_______
When that’s part of their job, they deserve it. And when they sentence criminals, it IS part. They aren’t doing their job. At a minimum, they need to find others. I recommend selling flowers.
As it is, what’s the point of having judges? What function do they serve?
As it is, what’s the point of having judges? What function do they serve?
==
To ensure (one hopes) procedural regularity. That is a function for which legal training is preparation. Sentencing is not and is a function which should be largely removed from their portfolio.
==
It turns out the judge, Teresa Stokes, has a side hustle as the “Chief of Operations” at Second Chance Services, a Charlotte clinic for addiction and mental health services.
So, what’s the play, then? Judge lets criminal go, orders evaluation by mental health clinic, they wave their magic wand over him, give him a prescription, and send him back out on the streets, then bill Medicare.
Ignore, for a moment, the obvious conflict-of-interest and self-dealing. Concentrate more on how the left has monetized human misery. Homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction, transsexual conversion, all of these are not “problems” for the left, they’re profit centers.
If one could snap one’s fingers and there were no homeless people anymore, you would put thousands of people out of work. They DEPEND on people being homeless, addicted, mentally ill, gender dysphoric. You can’t fundraise and get paid on “Mission Accomplished.” Nothing works because nothing’s supposed to work. If it worked, they’d be out of a job.
Excellent point.
PLUS the additional domino effect of other crises and malfunctions that are caused!!
PLUS all the money that can be made off THOSE crises!!
What’s known on planet DEM as WIN-WIN-WIN!!!
The lefties always want to blame the Republicans specifically Ronald Reagan for closing the mental hospitals. They ignore their own complicity due to deciding that everyone in them were simply eccentrics constantly mistreated by the brigades of Nurse Ratcheds. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was what closed the mental hospitals.
Actually I would say that what closed the mental hospitals was the book “The Myth of Mental Illness” by Dr, Szasz, He claimed that mental illness was imaginary.
“Are you advocating life imprisonment for anyone with 2 violent felonies?”
I am.
We need to do better about releasing violent eelbrains on bail or even no bail, too.
Actually I would say that what closed the mental hospitals was the book “The Myth of Mental Illness” by Dr, Szasz, He claimed that mental illness was imaginary.
==
Dr. Szasz was a libertarian eccentric and it’s doubtful he had much influence on state legislators.
Art Deco:
At the time, Szasz became a very famous and influential force. I recall the era quite well. See this:
He certainly didn’t do it singlehandedly, but he was extremely influential.
Sorry, not buying.
==
You had the advent of psychotropics, the Kennedy – era federal legislation, state legislators wanting to cut budgets, Titicut Follies, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the usual crew of officious judges, and the whole kultursmog promoting the idea that you erase social problems by giving people things. Thos. Szasz was on the faculty of an obscure medical school and was persona non grata among the editors of psychiatry journals. While he had many interesting observations, he was pushing a swiss-cheese thesis. (See Clayton Cramer on his residency in the 1940s; he successfully maneuvered to have little to do with schizophrenic patients).
Keep seeing rhetoric in the Black community I have to wonder is that what is triggering some of these out of the blue murders Blacks are committing. The Cultural Marxists do seem to be pushing war between races/ LGBQXYZ and White .
Just a thought
Art Deco:
Whether Szasz was correct about mental illness and de-institutionalization is a separate question. He was, however, very influential at the time in the de-institutionalization movement. He was not the only player, of course, but he was an important player in the political sense.
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember and I was already following it quite closely.
You can spend a week on Youtube watching police bodycams or security cameras showing black people acting in the most appalling & disrespectful way almost everywhere, from airports, to cruise ships, to shopping malls, to routine traffic stops. The operative phrase seems to be “ashamed of nothing, offended by everything”. This scumbag in Charlotte deserves to fry.
Bill Serra:
It’s the culture.
Alex Berenson has a recent post on the topic, very much along the lines followed by Neo and the commenters, with some additional information and observations.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-black-violence-woke-lies-and-right
“My teeth hurt even to write this. But we need to face it honestly.”
I asked Grok for a mnemonic for seat selection and mindset:
“SAFE SPOT” like a mental checklist when boarding transit:
S Sit near Safety in numbers: Prioritize areas with groups, especially women or families, to deter isolation.
A Avoid backs to threats: Choose Angle-facing seats (forward or side) for better visibility and less exposure from behind.
F Favor quick Flight paths: Position near exits, doors, or high-traffic spots for easy escape if needed.
E Evaluate your Environment: Scan and assess fellow passengers for any red flags before committing to a seat.
S Stay Situational: Keep alert, limit distractions, and use tech like apps for added awareness.
P Project Presence: Maintain confident posture to signal you’re not an easy target.
O Opt for Oversight: Seek seats near cameras, conductors, or well-lit areas for monitored protection.
T Trust your Tingle: If instincts say move, relocate immediately—no second-guessing.
Most Important: Move; don’t second-guess your gut.
Re: Szasz
I’ll weigh in on neo’s side here.
Back in the day I read Szasz, R.D. Laing and followed the anti-psychiatry movement. It was part of the zeitgeist then, which emerged vividly into the public consciousness with “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Szasz certainly was influential in that debate and even once testified in Congress:
________________________________
His books The Myth of Mental Illness (1961) and The Manufacture of Madness (1970) set out some of the arguments most associated with him. In 1961, Szasz testified before a United States Senate committee, arguing that using mental hospitals to incarcerate people defined as insane violated the general assumptions of the patient–doctor relationship, and turned the doctor into a warden and keeper of a prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Separate_psychiatry_and_the_state
________________________________
The final decisions on mental hospitals came down to money, power, and politics. However, if one ascribes to Breitbart’s maxim, “Politics is downstream from culture,” Thomas Szasz played his part — for better or for worse.
I would argue that serious mental illness is one of the thorniest problems a democratic society can confront.