Hear Me Out
/Escape from New York 2020
By Joseph R. Uliano, Ed.D.
Following the recent Twitter remarks made by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who praised a group of over 1,000 anti-NYPD protesters for toll jumping at a Brooklyn subway station, made me think of the 1981 “futuristic” movie “Escape from New York,” which was said to take place in 1997.
Here is what @AOC had to say:
“Arresting people who can’t afford a $2.75 fare makes no one safer and destabilizes our community. New Yorkers know that, they’re not having it, and they’re standing up for each other.”
It’s been nearly four decades since director John Carpenter wrote the plot about New York City turning into a maximum-security prison, because the criminal element outnumbered law-abiding citizens, which made it easier to just lock down the city and incarcerate everyone than fight a losing battle.
Sound a little farfetched? Not so fast! One articulation of avoiding a losing battle came in 2017 when the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office indicated that it wouldn’t prosecute most fare jumpers. Kind of sounds like “If you can’t beat them, then join them,” to me. Now the D.A.s office might lead you to believe that it took this position because it’s a “petty” offense and that most toll jumpers don’t have serious criminal records. But I think the truth is more than obvious. According to a 2018 New York Times report, the city lost $215 million due to toll jumpers, which accounted for 208,000 subway violators and another 398,000 bus violators. That’s more than a half-million offenders. What justice system has the time or resources to prosecute an additional half-million people? I would imagine not NYC. As you can see, this is a clear case of “If you can’t beat them, then join them.”
This is where John Carpenter’s plot comes into play, because what’s next? Non-enforcement for shoplifting? Or how about simple assault or worse? We already know New York won’t prosecute for assaults on law enforcement, as seen during the multiple incidents where uniformed officers had water and milk poured on them, and when the buckets went dry, they were thrown at the officers with no consequences. Do you non-believers see where I’m going with this? If you relax enforcement in one offense you’ll see an increase in other offenses, because one, the criminal element likes to test the water and two, reducing punishment will have a profound negative affect on preventive measures that act as a deterrent. Isn’t that what a criminal justice system is designed to do; deter crime and rehabilitate offenders through punishment, and if need be incarceration?
In 1764 Cesare Beccaria, the Italian-born philosopher and founder of criminology authored “On Crimes and Punishments,” outlining what is perhaps the first literary piece on criminal justice reform. Beccaria’s main focus was advocating against the death penalty and torture as a way of punishment, but he also understood the importance of consequences for criminal behavior. Simply put, Beccaria suggested that all crimes should be addressed, as long as the punishment meets the crime and does not exceed it. He also advocated against discretionary prosecution. According to Beccaria’s 1764 literature, I don’t believe the founding father of penology would be happy with prosecutors and judges exercising their discretion by coming out and saying they will no longer prosecute toll jumpers. He also suggested that punishment should be in a close proximity to where the offense occurred, as it should serve as a deterrent to not only the offender but to those contemplating criminal acts.
If our prosecutors and judges continue to exercise their power of discretion by decriminalizing established laws as seen in the 2017 announcement made by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, what will serve as a deterrent? I believe Beccaria would say that allowing toll jumpers to continue their criminal behavior sets a dangerous precedence that has the potential to illicit more criminal activity, because when the observation of punishment is removed there is no observable deterrent.
Who is going to rescue the law-abiding citizens of New York and the millions upon millions of people who visit the city each year from this potentially dangerous precedence? Well we know it’s not going to be Snake Plissken because he is a fictional character, and we know it’s not going to be Mayor Bill de Blasio, because like John Carpenter’s characters, he too can be likened to a fictional character, because sometimes the things he says are truly unbelievable, such as quoting the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, a key player of the Cuban Revolution, which ultimately handed Cuba to Fidel Castro.
In an ironic twist, if I were to write a 2020 edition of the 1981 “Escape from New York,” it wouldn’t have Snake Plissken rescuing the president of the United States from behind the prison walls that surround Manhattan, but rather President Trump leading the way to defeat the “Duke of New York,” the controlling warlock who runs the island through his anarchy and barbarism.
Sometimes the use of satire and even a little humor, as seen here, evokes a thought process that is sometimes overshadowed by the overwhelming opinions of the masses. But is this satire? The truth, as I close this out with my finally thoughts, is I don’t find any of this humorous. I find it to be sad that we have elected officials such as AOC and Bill de Blasio who are willing to decriminalize offenses to gain further political support. After all, who wouldn’t want to be able to just do what they want and face no consequences? It’s kind of like a free-for-all when the substitute teacher fills in for the regularly assigned rigid and authoritative teacher. However, they are called “substitute” for a reason, because order needs to be restored upon the teacher’s return. It’s truly time to restore order in NYC, not reduce it. Turning Manhattan into a maximum-security prison is in fact farfetched, but can NYC become another Chicago? Without a doubt it can. Convince me otherwise and you can sell snow to an Eskimo, my friends.
