I’m not sure whether to dwell on the notion that an entire society and/or an entire city council supposedly makes a singular decision (once a year, perhaps?) on exactly how much money goes to not just the various governmental departments but also the actual line items in each of those departments (with no possibility of changing priorities if a new emergency comes along), or the notion that prosecuting violent crime should not be considered a primary responsibility of government but rather something that should be tied lock-step to funding of long term solutions affecting the victims of that violence.
As someone who has never gotten the slightest consideration for how violent crime has affected me, I’m curious what our concerned poster here would want local government to spend on victims like me instead of prosecuting a violent criminal who has shown themselves to be a danger to the community.
First, neutralize the immediate danger. Then, look at long term solutions to prevent the same crisis from happening again.
But no, apparently we can’t put out a fire unless we’ve got replacement smoke detectors ready to install at the same time.
