You’re right, missed that part. Democrats are notoriously soft on crime.
I'm not a Democrat, though that is where my votes tend to go; the problem with "hard on crime" is that--given the history in America--this almost always means a two-tiered system that results in the over-incarceration of minorities, tends to slap the wrist of perpetrators who are wealthy (and white), which ignores underlying social issues; and rejects prison reform.
I think people who commit heinous crimes, regardless of their status or race, ought to have the book thrown at them. There are deeply disturbed people who do horrible things, and it is a matter of public safety to keep them off the streets.
But we have a notoriously broken judicial system in which, over the years, I've personally seen cases where criminals who, if they wear a badge, don't face serious consequences for their actions; where non-violent offenders receive the full weight of prosecution (especially if they are poor and non-white); and where wealthy violent perpetrators (especially if white) seemingly get away with a wag of the finger.
"Hard on crime" and "soft on crime" rhetoric rarely seems to address any meaningful issues of justice, criminal prosecution, prison reform, or fixing our court system.
As I said near the beginning of this post, those who commit heinous crimes should have the book thrown at them. If you were to ask most left-leaning people,, they are going to tell you the same thing. Almost nobody is going to say they want a violent and unstable person who is an active threat to the public walking around--we have families, we have friends, we have places of employment, we don't want to see people get killed or be killed.
But what we do, typically, want is to see justice carried out. There is no good reason why a black kid from the inner city who sold marijuana should be locked up for decades while a rich white college kid who commits rape gets a "don't do it again" and a pat on the back. And pointing that out isn't being "soft on crime". Nor is it being "soft on crime" to point out that people who are mentally unwell should be getting medical treatment, and if they are a danger to themselves or others, they should be isolated from the general public for their own--and others--well being. Nor is it soft on crime to say that we should address underlying social issues; or to argue that our institution of policing is severely broken.
I want to live in a society where consequences are measured; where having wealth and thus access to the best lawyers and attorneys doesn't give one an undue advantage, where those who are poor have to get bottom of the barrel scraps and underpaid and apathetic public defenders. I want to see a society where justice is treasured--not merely punitive justice that punishes the perpetrator, but justice that restores wrongs and sets things rights. No system will ever be perfect, but we can still pursue
better.
-CryptoLutheran