Soros-Funded Victims’ Groups
As National Crime Victims’ Rights Week kicks off on April 24, three California groups, which support shorter sentences and the early release of criminals, will be holding rallies and events portraying themselves as the voice of victims.
The three progressive groups funded by liberal billionaire George Soros—Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, Californians for Safety and Justice, and Prosecutors Alliance of California—support defunding police departments, declining to prosecute most criminals, and seeking the shortest possible sentences for those who are prosecuted.
As reported on Fox 40 News, earlier this week, representatives of these groups met with legislators in Sacramento to encourage more state-funded services for crime victims, while ignoring the laws and policies that have flooded California communities with criminals.
At least two of the suspects arrested for the April 3 mass shootings in Sacramento, which killed six and injured twelve, were repeat offenders who were armed and on the street due to policies that these three so-called victims’ groups support. These groups also support the policies that allowed illegal alien David Mora to walk out of the Merced County Jail the day he was arrested for assaulting a police officer, and only days later gunning down his three daughters and a chaperone on February 28.
A primary focus of the Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice is on police shootings, not on criminals. In 2016, the group publicly supported Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act, which allows for the early release of thousands of habitual and violent felons.
Californians for Safety and Justice was a major supporter of California’s Proposition 47, The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which has left drug dealers, addicts, and thieves in communities to commit smash and grab robberies and violent attacks, including murders.
The Prosecutors Alliance of California represents four progressive District Attorneys whose elections were bankrolled by Soros and rich California liberals. Two of its members, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón and San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, are so pro-criminal that they’re facing recalls. The other two, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton and San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar, hold similar pro-criminal views.
These groups helped sell the lie that Propositions 47 and 57 would make California safer. Their advocacy for more services for crime victims is a smokescreen for their commitment to eliminating consequences for the criminals who are turning thousands of law-abiding Californians into crime victims.
While we all agree that crime victims should be given all the help possible to recover from the damage and loss associated with a criminal assault, the news media’s portrayal of these Soros-funded groups as a legitimate voice for victims is akin to identifying drug dealers as advocates for junkies.
Hi Michael –
I think the fact that these particular victims of crime, whether or not they are organized by Soros, are not necessarily advocating for longer sentences should tell you something – not every crime victim wants more prosecutions and longer sentences. A better way to reduce prosecutions and crime is to try to give disadvantaged people the social support they need before they land up in trouble with the law – and a more compassionate position for those who wind up in trouble with the law may lead to fewer crime victims if the offender is provided social services and the treatment they need (cognitive behavioral therapy, detox, and so on) to lead law abiding lives. Incarceration may keep the public safe but we should always remember that the disadvantaged may turn to crime through no fault of their own and not all victims of crime want longer and longer sentences – some of them want compassion and preventing future victims of crime through treatment of social/behavioral deficits. Thank you
Your first assertion is the Straw Man Fallacy. We never claimed that *every* crime victim wants more prosecutions and longer sentences.
Your second assertion merely assumes without evidence that the cause of crime is that “disadvantaged” people lack “social support.” That was the myth that LBJ used to sell America on the Great Society. It wasn’t true then and failed miserably. Been there, done that, didn’t work.
It’s really annoying how you consistently, self-righteously cloak your opinions with the mantle of the “more compassionate position.” Given that common sense and experience tell us that going softer on crime will lead to more victimization of innocent people, and you have not shown any evidence to the contrary, your position may be more compassionate to criminals, but it is much less compassionate to the victims of those criminals.
Your “no fault of their own” assertion is preposterous. What do you think motivates crime? Do you seriously think that in 2022 crimes are committed by modern Jean Valjeans stealing loaves of bread to feed starving children? That is not the reality of crime today. Crimes are committed by people who choose to do so.
I just believe that people who become involved in crime may be involved due to brain injuries/poor role modeling early in life and we should try to be more understanding and compassionate – I know you, Michael, and Bill lived through the 60s and 70s (the era of increased crime) and the 80s and 90s (when America increased incarceration) and that you guys tend to believe that “tougher” law enforcement (more police and prosecution) reduces crime but it fails to recognize the fact that we are all more than our worst behaviors and our society should recognize that 1) people who commit crime almost always have behavioral disadvantages/ brain injuries and that the influences to become involved in crime may be out of their control and 2) we should try to provide individuals with the opportunity to change their behavior.
Please explain your “almost always” comment and what you mean by “behavioral disadvantages.” If you mean that people who commit crimes almost always have brain injuries significant enough to be a causal factor, please cite the empirical basis of that statement. I do not believe it is even remotely close to true.
The main reason people commit serious crimes is that they have internalized anti-social attitudes. That is why, as Barry Latzer has documented, crime rates vary widely among immigrant groups who suffer comparable levels of discrimination and poverty. Culture trumps everything.
The reasons for internalization of anti-social attitudes are many, but common sense tells us that one of them is the observation that crime pays. If kids grow up seeing that criminals freely take what hard-working people have earned, they are more likely to develop the attitude that hard work is for chumps and crime is the way to go. If they see that crime is punished and hard work rewarded, they are more likely to develop pro-social attitudes and work ethic.
And your assumption that differences in attitudes about crime are strictly generational is incorrect. There are plenty of young people who agree with our position. There are also, unfortunately, plenty of older folks who agree with yours.
And one more thing: “We should try to provide individuals with the opportunity to change their behavior.”
Every sane person has free will and has the opportunity to change his behavior.