REBUTTAL - Grams
Rodgrams@aol.com
Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:24:52 -0500
>Question #3 - November 4, 1994
>I believe that it is the primary responsibility of state and local
governments to >insure the safety of our neighborhoods by keeping police
officers on the street and >enforcing laws. However, our states and
localities need additional resources to >implement the programs to keep our
kids off the streets and to put more police >officers on the beat.
Like my opponent, Ann Wynia, I agree that the primary responsibility of state
and local governments is to ensure the safety of our citizens from criminals.
However, it is clear that my opponent and I differ when it comes to the
federal government's role in crime control. Specifically, Ann Wynia wants to
combat crime by spending and adding more money to ineffective social welfare
spending while I would like to add more emphasis on deterring individuals
through stricter sentencing, more prisons and making sure the death penalty
is enforceable.
Since 1960, the federal government has spent over $5 trillion dollars to
reduce crime, yet the national crime rate is as its highest level ever. In
fact, the number of major felonies per capita today is roughly three times
the typical rates before 1960. These programs have clearly failed to reduce
crime, so why should Congress authorize yet more of this funding for the
purposes of reducing crime?
Instead of adding more funding for ineffective programs, the federal
government should assist the states to incarcerate more criminals by
constructing more prisons. Studies have indicated that one of the best ways
to reduce crime is to keep known criminals out of society. From 1990-1991
the states with the greatest increases in criminal incarceration rates
experienced, on average, a 12.7 percent decrease in crime. The ten states
with the weakest incarceration rate trends experienced an average 6.9 percent
increase in crime.
Throwing taxpayers' dollars at weak social welfare spending is not the most
effective way of fighting crime. Investments in real sentencing and more
prisons are more effective in lowering the crime rate. As your U.S. Senator,
I will support such measures to protect the taxpayer from criminals and an
ineffective social bureaucracy.
Let me conclude by thanking everyone who participated in these debates and
the "cyper-conversations" they generated. It has been a fascinating week.
Thanks especially to Scott Aikens for his work in making the debate
possible.
Rod Grams
Candidate for U.S. Senate