With domestic violent crime we don't have one or two images that can be broadcast to remind us of all of the lives lost or changed forever.
Part of the problem is that we want clearly defined heroes and we want clearly defined villains. Yet murders committed thoughout America rarely gives us what we want in a tidy little package.
In a shift from trends of the past decade, violent crime is on the rise, fueling criticism of Bush administration policies as a wave of murders and shootings hits smaller cities and states with little experience with serious urban violence.
After dramatic declines in murder rates in the 1990s, some cities dropped programs that emphasized prevention and controls on the spread of guns, often citing budget cuts.
From the expiration of a federal ban on assault rifles to tougher restrictions on databases that identify gun owners, gun laws have weakened in the past five years, said Daniel Vice, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Which brings me to a key difference between fighting terrorism and preventing violent crimes like murder.
Some very effective prevention programs could be seen as soft on crime and soft on criminals. Helping those at risk of offending may seem counter-intuitive, especially if you believe crime is biological. As I discussed in my post, The Iron Fist Fallacy using brute force to fight crime can backfire.
We have to respect the humanity of potential murderers to reduce the number of real murders.
Revenge alone gives only shallow satisfaction.
Technorati tags: murder crime prevention politics violence