Tough-on-crime approach led to an increase in crime

The opposition to nominee for Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, expressed concern that she would be “soft on crime.” For decades now we have been “tough on crime,” “lock `em up,” but I have recently read there is a rise in the crime rate, so the tough approach does not appear to be working.

Most crimes are committed by young people whose brains are not fully developed. Many youth accused of crime are abused children who do not benefit by the cruelty of jail, except when the crime is violent and society may need protection. We need to show young people that we love and care for them, but we abhor the crime and we will not put up with it. If possible, offenders should meet and apologize to those they have hurt. Young offenders should then get the help they need so they can change and learn to make wise choices. Crime “ages out” in adulthood.

But it's adults who provide access to guns to children. Americans are especially concerned about gun violence, yet giving up (or even regulating) guns for some, is unthinkable. Some people think it is more important for hunters to have guns to kill wild animals than to provide safety to people.

It is difficult to make changes in our culture, but it is high time we change. We first need to work on prevention of crime and then treatment.

Let's use our tax money wisely treating unruly children now instead of keeping our jails filled with people who committed crimes decades ago as children who failed to get their needs met and made bad choices.

To be “soft on crime” would be worth at least offering help rather than punishment to confused, unhappy children.

— Marjorie Atkinson, Seaside