Thursday, August 16, 2007

Matt Kelty Can't be Serious

In today's News-Sentinel, Matt Kelty comments on Tom Henry's Safe House Plan:
“It’s only the timid half step of a beginning in the right direction,” Kelty said.

The best way to fight crime, he said, is to reduce unemployment. “At the end of the day we achieve a safer community when we have prosperity.”

Did Kelty really mean to suggest that economic growth will reduce pedophilia and other sexual predators? There is absolutely NO BASIS for that argument. And what I find incredibly rich is that a candidate indicted for 7 felonies would have the gall to denigrate any plan for reducing crime - a sense of proportion would've served him well here.

UPDATE: I decided to delete the previous portion because I think the tone was slightly over-the-top of what I really wanted to say. I came to this conclusion after speaking with somebody I respect that was taken aback by my comment. To that person the comment implied that someone who is indicted should not be allowed to speak on certain topics. That's NOT what I wanted to say. The real point I wanted to make was that the day of your arraignment might not be the best time to attack the other candidate's plans.

Even the most ardent supporters of supply side economics must admit that some crime is simply not related to prosperity. Will advancing prosperity in the area reduce crime in general? Perhaps but I suppose it depends on how one defines "prosperity". What will not reduce crime is cutting the city's budget to unrealistic levels that could impact the money available for public safety officers and programs. That is something Matt Kelty has proposed to do...

22 comments:

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Jeff:

You seem convinced that this "safe House" plan from Henry will somehow limit the activities of sexual predators.

Why?

I read the program and all I see are some "safe houses" with small stickers in the windows telling kids these places are safe.

Kids have PLENTY of places they can turn to if they are victims of sexual predators; I will name a few:

1. Relatives.
2. Neighbors.
3. Teachers, Administrators, Counselors at school.
4. The Fort Wayne Police Department

The only time a "safe house" is needed is in situations where a criminal is currently, actively chasing a child down the street with the intent of hurting those children. I can assure you that this is not a common event in my neighborhood.

Mike Sylvester

Karen Goldner said...

Unfortunately, Mike, not all kids live in neighborhoods where there are no sex offenders. Kids are told to stay away from strangers and in today's society, lots of neighbors are strangers, so then it's confusing for a child to know where to go if they feel like they need help. This is a way to address that problem.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Crafting an ordinance that prohibits where convicted sexual predators live is something I can agree with.

Once again, this safe house plan does NOTHING to stop sexual predaotrs.

I agree that many people do not know their neighbors and I agree that not knowing your neighbors is a problem.

It is not the government's job to go out and introduce everyone to their neighbors.

Mike Sylvester

Karen Goldner said...

"It is not the government's job to go out and introduce everyone to their neighbors."

That's not what the Safe House program does, Mike. But if providing public safety isn't part of the government's job, then I don't know what is. The Safe House program is a way to do that.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Karen Goldner:

Come on...

I invite you to point out to me where I wrote that it is "not the job of Government to protect children."

Mike Sylvester

John Good said...

Crafting an ordinance that prohibits where convicted sexual predators live is something I can agree with.

Careful now, Mike! That might cost a little extra for enforcement!!

Jeff Pruitt said...

Mike,

I'm not a spokesman for Tom Henry and this is not my plan; mine would be much harsher as you know. With that said, I don't believe the point is to give kids somewhere to go if they are victims. The real point is to deter sexual predators from preying on children in their neighborhood - a sexual predator version of the neighborhood watch if you will.

Is it an effective deterrent? I don't think I know enough about the program to form an opinion one way or the other. Obviously AWB, and perhaps yourself, don't think programs like this work. I will look at the data and then decide...

Parson said...

John, we can use private business to enforce those laws. That way the sexual predators types can get jobs.

Talk about "no child left behind".

bobett said...

I do believe if folks can make a living they will not resort to crime. I'd like to see Tom
Henry's plan on Job Creation for the city and working with the
community. And job creation that is not all about welfare.

How did this discussion turn into Tom Henry's campaign against sexual predators? Or Matt Kelty's?

This mayoral election is so much more than the tit for tat, he said, she said. Let's get to
major issues.

Sorry, stickers in windows of homes, businesses, & schools to assure safety is behind the times.
Reminds me of the stickers placed in windows so the fire department would know how to save the children first.

Good detective work, a strong Local, State, & National cross-referenced data base might be better to enforce the sexual predator problem. So may I ask,
how is a Mayor going to do solve
this problem?

Well, he's not. Yes, there's more local pressing issues. I'd like to hear about those.

FWPOLITICS said...

I would never tell a child to enter a stangers house to ask for help, simply based upon a sticker that's in the window. So,the police check these people before issuing their stickers. What happens when they move out? Do the police come back to make sure all stickers have been removed? Also, what happens when someone gets hold of some of these stickers and places them where they don't belong? To guarantee the integrity of these stickers, the police would have to constantly drive around looking for them in windows and check to see if that house is currently registered. A uniformed officer or perhaps even a steel sign planted deeply in the ground, these have integrity. A sticker does not. I think this is "feel good" politics - sounds good on the surface, but will really have no meaningful impact.

bobett said...

fwpolitics, you said it better!

Now can we Move On to what's important in Fort Wayne.

It appears this community
has more pressing issues.

Robert Rouse said...

"I do believe if folks can make a living they will not resort to crime."

You've got to be joking??!!??

What about the woman who was raped by her apartment's handyman? Didn't he have a job? Are you saying rapists and pedophiles will lose their sick urges because of a paycheck?

Answer me this - how can someone embezzle money from their employer if they don't have one?

All those postal workers who started killing their co-workers were getting paychecks weren't they?

Now, what was that you said, Bobbette? Oh yeah ... "... I do believe if folks can make a living they will not resort to crime."

credo said...

Now how many churches will use these little stickers to attract parents with children to their building?

How many millions is the church paying for harboring pedophilias,oops them priests.


Tom Henry is playing it safe by talking about the crooks and robbers of the status quo so as to not offend.

Henry is focusing on criminal activities in light of the fact that kelty was indicted. Henry is taking advantage of Kelty's situation and is playing the public stupid with this sticker in the window program.

otto said...

Mike,

when you said, "Kids have PLENTY of places they can turn to if they are victims of sexual predators; I will name a few:

1. Relatives.
2. Neighbors.
3. Teachers, Administrators, Counselors at school.
4. The Fort Wayne Police Department"

we agreed for one of the few times.

otto said...

did my previous post not get approved?

Jeff Pruitt said...

Otto,

There is no "approval" on this blog. All comments are immediately posted...

otto said...

sorry, my bad I confused this with AWB.

otto said...

Mike,
You are ok with a banning sex offenders from living in the city? Wow, what happened to Libertarian ideals? They apply selectively?

otto said...

Opps, sorry Mike, I misread your list. The people who molest 90% of kids are family members, neighbors and clergy. The elaborate programs set up to make people feel good don't make an appreciable impact, if we want to help kids the money is better spent in other areas.

bobett said...

I get your point Robert Rouse:

Clearly there is a correlation between crime rate of employed & umemployed...crime rate between the educated & uneducated...
crime rate amoung the ethical
& unethical folks.

Then there is the down right mentally ill folks that commit crimes.

Robert said...

Standard Democrat politics ...How could anyone be against anything that is "for the children". Excuse me if I don't buy into the political rhetoric.

Kaiser said...

This morning I heard on the radio that employees making over $75,000 are also the ones who are most likely to steal office supplies from the supply closet.

I think we need a task force to address this issue.

Yeah, I think Henry needs to start throwing out some more "meat". This cotton candy, fluffy stuff is nice, but it should only be one part of an overall agenda to address crime.