In the contretemps about theft, vandalism, substance abuse, and homelessness, Our Leaders of Las Cruces—Mayor, Councilors, City Manager, Police Chief—are showing their contempt for citizens and the rule of law in Las Cruces.
Caving to the monied interests of businesses and builders, Our Leaders have stated their desire to find ways to circumvent a 2016 amendment to the New Mexico constitution approved by an 87% majority. The ballot statement proposes “to protect community safety by granting courts new authority to deny release on bail pending trial for dangerous defendants in felony cases while retaining the right to pretrial release for non-dangerous defendants who do not pose a flight risk.” As I read this statement, the courts retain authority, not acquire a new one, to pretrial release of certain defendants. Regardless, Our Leaders are acting as if an amendment in effect for nearly 6 years is a cause of the city’s problems with theft, vandalism, substance abuse, and homelessness.
It is no such cause. But Our Leaders’ claim that it is a cause; it gives them a scapegoat to blame and citizens to punish because they lack the ability to effectively address the conditions or effects of these problems. As reported by Michael McDevitt of the Sun-News, Our Leaders’ positions are entirely punitive.
Take Mayor Miyagishima’s positions, not only mean-spirited, but also self-defeating. They offer nothing constructive, nothing to mitigate or prevent undesirable conduct from occurring in the future. They make things worse.
1. He opposes “expanding the Desert Hope permanent supportive housing project in response to community fervor” [not clear whether the “fervor” is for or against].
The Mayor does not want to provide housing for the homeless; too many of “them” would continue to live in the city and, according to his prejudice, cause trouble. Far from abating the problem of homelessness, his position would increase it, with all the problems which attend it. He wants to make things worse.
2. He desires “to crack down on repeat offenders by amending bail reform.”
The Mayor does want to keep the poor who cannot afford bail in jail indefinitely—trials are long delayed—to prevent repeat offenses. He thus urges preventive detention on the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. He advocates a position which discriminates against the poor. He advocates a Debtors’ Prison. He wants to make things worse.
3. The Mayor desires “to deny supportive services to unhoused people who are arrested multiple times.”
He wants to punish the homeless with multiple arrests whether or not they have committed any post-arrest offenses by denying them assistance. He thereby wants to increase the chances that desperation will cause them to commit crimes. He wants to make things worse.
Now take City Manager Pili’s and Police Chief Dominguez’s positions, which are no less mean-spirited, but also downright incredible. Thus, they may have already taken “internal actions … that could circumvent bail reform,” without any thought that a civil rights attorney might take such a case and sue the city for civil rights violations—but, hey, it’s the taxpayer’s money. And, in their wisdom, they are trying to figure out how to “keep repeat offenders behind bars for longer.” I am not alone in being skeptical about the means of doing so; McDevitt opines that “there's no telling how that could be done.” Of course, we both believe in the law.
What continues to impress me about the Police Chief is his utter lack of cogency and his utter lack of scruple about either the truth or the rule of law. He tells City Council that citizens do not trust the police—no reason given—, then directs the LCPD to release a PR film of the police killing of Sra. Baca which misleadingly presents the events—for no good reason—, then reports that citizen violence against the police is up nearly half from last year—no reason given. Then there is his lack of scruple about the idea of skirting the law—when inconvenient for police, OK; when inconvenient for others, jail and more jail—and secretly imposing longer imprisonments than the sentences which courts impose. Yet Dominguez heads the police department: dishonest, incompetent, corrupt, demoralized, and—surprise—understaffed.
I have said nothing about Our Leaders who art in Council. Mayor Pro-Tem Kasandra Gandara fully supports the police and wants several social programs. Councilor Johanna Bencomo, rebuked about and retreating from police reform gravely intones that there is a need for suitable policies. These Progressives stand strong for progress, even without a compass to give them direction.
The question is: what constitutes progress in the minds of Progressives? Official coercion over the rule of law? Official subversion of state and federal constitutions, and the judicial system? The answers seem to be that, in the context of a problem of petty infractions, few, if any, moral or intellectual differences exist, and then only of degree, between the solutions of Progressives and the Proud Boys. Just lock ‘em up and throw away the key.
No comments:
Post a Comment