“the Gallup trend shows that since 1993, as violent crime rates have steadily fallen, Americans’ perceptions have shifted based on their partisan affiliation and the occupant of the White House: In 2004, during President George W. Bush’s first term, the 53 percent of respondents who thought crime had risen included 39 percent of Republicans but 67 percent of Democrats. (FBI statistics for that year indicated that both violent and property crime each declined by just over 2 percent in that year.)
On the other hand, Americans in general just seem particularly bad at judging crime trends: In 2014, 63 percent of all respondents told Gallup that crime was up over the previous year, including 57 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans. Meanwhile, 2014 turned out to be the least violent year in decades.
But Americans’ views on crime and criminal justice, no matter how capricious and ill-informed they may seem, are extremely consequential. After all, while the president likely has very little direct influence on criminal justice trends in your local police precinct, voters have the power to elect prosecutors, who wield tremendous power in deciding who faces prison time and how punitive their sentences could be. And there is evidence that voters’ perceptions of crime affect what kind of prosecutor they’re likely to favor.
“The growth in incarceration rates in the United States over the past 40 years is historically unprecedented and internationally unique,” a 2014 study found. “Local elected officials—including state legislators who enacted sentencing policies and, in many places, judges and prosecutors who decided individual cases—were highly attuned to their constituents’ concerns about crime. Under these conditions, punishment policy moved in a more punitive direction.”
Prosecutors recognize this, as well. In a 2022 draft policy paper, Harvard Ph.D candidate Chika Okafor found that “being in a [district attorney] election year increases total admissions per capita to state prisons and total months sentenced per capita,” meaning that prosecutors are more likely to seek prison time and longer sentences for offenders during election years.”
“Economic freedom isn’t just some wonky concept debated in academic halls. It’s about whether a government protects property rights or seizes assets at will; whether regulations are sensible or suffocating; whether you can trade freely or face a maze of obstructions; whether your money holds its value or your purchasing power gets eroded by government mismanagement; and whether you can count on courts to enforce contracts fairly.
The 2024 index, using the latest available data from 2022, measures precisely these factors across 165 countries, as it has done since 1996. The results are striking.
The freest economies enjoy an average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita about 7.6 times greater than that of the 25 percent least economically free places. They have cleaner environments, better health care outcomes, and longer life expectancies—by a lot. Even the poorest citizens of free countries fare better than the middle classes in economically repressive nations.
Who are these lucky countries? “Hong Kong (1st), Singapore (2nd), Switzerland (3rd), New Zealand (4th), the United States (5th), Denmark and Ireland (tied for 6th), Canada (8th), and Australia and Luxembourg (tied for 9th).” It shouldn’t be lost on my readers that Denmark, which Sen. Bernie Sanders (D–Vt.) often uses as an example of a socialist democratic regime, has far more in common with the United States than with a truly socialist country.”
Trump pick accused of sexual assault and abusing women claims accusations are based on nothing when there’s a police report and the words of his own mother. He acts like “they” are out to get him rather than dealing truthfully with the evidence against him. Megyn Kelly lets such bullshit go unchallenged like she doesn’t care or didn’t do basic homework before talking to an important guest.
“Trips to Israel are only one piece of a multipronged strategy for promoting Israel’s interests. AIPAC hosts an annual conference for elected officials in the Washington, D.C., area, which former Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) called the “largest gathering of members of Congress” other than the State of the Union.
The organization spent over $3 million on lobbying last year, and its spending in 2024 currently places it among the top 3 percent of all lobbyist groups tracked by OpenSecrets. Its PAC and super PAC also helped funnel a combined $50.9 million into the 2022 election cycle alone, according to OpenSecrets.
Still, AIPAC’s prolific recruitment of members and staff for travel to Israel — travel which cost at least $10 million, according to LegiStorm data for 2012-2023 — demonstrates the importance AIPAC places on its travel program. According to the Howard Center’s analysis, roughly half of the current members of the House have traveled with the organization since 2012.”
“The 12-week abortion ban Nebraska lawmakers passed in May 2023 included exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.
As in other states, these exceptions have proved ambiguous for doctors on the ground, and many patients who need abortion care have been unable to get it.
Kim Paseka, a 34-year-old woman based in Lincoln, Nebraska, was one of those patients. Paseka lives with her husband and their 3-year-old son, and though they wanted at least two children, they were unsure about pursuing that in Nebraska after Roe was overturned.
“We knew it was probably inevitable that our state government was going to work on banning reproductive health care in some capacity and it definitely gave us pause, like should we move, do we stay and fight? Those were our dinner table conversations,” she told Vox. In the summer of 2023, just after Nebraska lawmakers passed their 12-week ban, Paseka learned she was pregnant again.
Initial blood tests looked fine, but following a routine ultrasound, Paseka was informed that her baby’s heartbeat was slower than expected. In subsequent appointments, the doctors determined the heartbeat was diminishing and that Paseka was carrying a nonviable pregnancy.
Because of the new ban and the fact that Paseka’s life was not immediately threatened, her doctors weren’t comfortable ending the pregnancy. They sent her home with instructions for “expectant management” — meaning to wait until she’d bleed out eventually with a miscarriage.
“I had to go back to the hospital for three more scans, where I had to see the heartbeat weaken further week by week, and during this whole time I’m so nauseous, I’m tired, I’m experiencing all the regular pregnancy symptoms, but I was carrying a nonviable pregnancy,” she said. It took roughly a month for Paseka to finally bleed out the pregnancy at home.
“In Nebraska, we have these exceptions, but in my situation it wasn’t assault, it wasn’t incest, and my life wasn’t in immediate danger, so I automatically just lose health care,” she said. “They’re forgetting how detrimental that can be to mental health, that it’s not just about physical endangerment. … I felt like a walking coffin.”
Mann, the executive director of Nebraska’s statewide abortion fund, emphasized that the 12-week ban has had far-reaching consequences that most people underestimate.
“Not only are folks now restricted in how and when they can get the care they need, but it’s additionally problematic that these rules are designed to be confusing and were brought about during a time when confusion was at an all-time high,” she told Vox. “We talk to callers and members of the community all the time who have no idea when and if abortion is even legal here in Nebraska.”
There are two remaining abortion clinics in the state, though both only perform abortions part-time, meaning there sometimes are not enough appointments to go around, including for patients traveling in from states with near-total bans like Iowa and South Dakota.
“This means that not only are patients who are past the 12-week mark forced to flee the state for care, but even patients under that ban restriction are sometimes having to travel just to get an appointment in a timely manner,” Mann explained. “These patients are going to places like Minneapolis, Chicago, and Denver … this travel is often expensive, inconvenient, and overall an enormous burden on pregnant people.””
“Beginning in the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court maintained that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Thus, as a particular method of punishment grew less common, the Court was increasingly likely to declare it cruel and unusual in violation of the Constitution.
At least some members of the Court’s Republican majority, however, have suggested that this “evolving standards of decency” framework should be abandoned. In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), the Court considered whether states could use execution methods that risked causing the dying inmate a great deal of pain. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which held that potentially painful methods of execution are allowed, seems to exist in a completely different universe than the Court’s Eighth Amendment cases that look to evolving standards.
While the Court’s earlier opinions ask whether a particular form of punishment has fallen out of favor today, Gorsuch asked whether a method of punishment was out of favor at the time of the founding. Though his opinion does list some methods of execution, such as “disemboweling” and “burning alive” that violate the Eighth Amendment, Gorsuch wrote that these methods are unconstitutional because “by the time of the founding, these methods had long fallen out of use and so had become ‘unusual.’”
What makes Bucklew confusing, however, is that it didn’t explicitly overrule any of the previous decisions applying the evolving standards framework. So it’s unclear whether all five of the justices who joined that opinion share a desire to blow up more than a half-century of law, or if the justices who joined the Bucklew majority simply failed to rein in an overly ambitious opinion by Gorsuch, the Court’s most intellectually sloppy justice.
In any event, Hamm opens up at least two major potential divides within the Court. Smith says he is intellectually disabled; the state of Alabama wants to execute him anyway. So the case perfectly tees up a challenge to Atkins if a majority of the justices want to go there. Meanwhile, Bucklew looms like a vulture over any cruel and unusual punishment case heard by the Court, as it suggests that the Republican justices may hit the reset button on all of its Eighth Amendment precedents at any time.”