I am in utter shock at the reaction I have seen from Charlotte’s mayor, Vi Lyles, to to the gruesome the gruesome murder that took place in the city for which she is responsible. I simply do not understand it. Lyles sounds — quite literally — as if she is a hostage, who, whether by political pressure or corrupt ideology, has been forced to utter sentences that focus on the wrong things, that make no sense on their own terms, and that, if taken seriously, will lead inexorably to the same thing happening again. Reading her comments, I was reminded of that moment in The Truman Show when Jim Carrey’s character looks around and asks, incredulously, “What the hell has that got to do with anything?” Who is Lyles talking to? Why is she saying what she is saying? And why is the press playing along, as if the important story here is the Americans who are horrified rather than the politicians who are not?

Lyles was keen to propose that “we will never arrest our way out [of] issues such homelessness and mental health.” That’s nonsense. The guy who committed this crime had been arrested over and over and over again — including for assault, breaking and entering, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and communicating threats. He had resisted arrest. He had failed to appear in court. He had been caught multiple times in possession of a firearm — which his status as a felon prohibited. If, instead of being out on the streets, he had been in prison, this would not have happened. Or, to put it another way: If the authorities had done their jobs, they could absolutely have “arrested their way out of” this murder.

Heck, they’re doing it now! Per local news, the killer has been arrested and “charged with first-degree murder in connection to Zarutska’s death.” Why? Obviously, because, given his proclivities, it is understood that he must be kept away from the general public. So why not earlier? Surely it cannot be the case that we can arrest our way out of murders only after a murder has been committed? We have other laws in this country than those against murder — laws that are supposed to be enforced in their own right, and that, when enforced, often serve to nip would-be repeat-offenders in the bud. During her remarks, Lyles made sure to confirm that, “I am not villainizing those who struggle with their mental health or those who are unhoused.” But, of course, that’s not what she’s being asked to do. She’s being asked to villainize — or, if she can’t bring herself to make moral judgements, to ensure that the criminal justice systems deal with — people who have rap sheets that look like this:

Lyles’s conclusion was that the murder “should force us to look at what we are doing across our community to address root causes.” What rot. What utter rot. There was no magical “root cause” that yielded this attack. There was no clever government program that could have prevented it. Crazy or not, the guy was a career criminal who should have been locked up for one of the many, many crimes that he’d committed. If Lyles and her government are “forced” to look at anything, it’s why they did not do their jobs, and why, even now, having failed so spectacularly, they are more concerned with the feelings of the perpetrator and his friends than with the victim. Lyles said that the murderer “suffered a crisis.” Give me a break. The crisis was felt by the woman who was killed, her friends and family, and everyone else who now feels that the city of Charlotte has no interest in their wellbeing.

I do not think that figures such as Vi Lyles — or anyone within the archipelago of NGOs that inform her worldview — understand the degree to which they are playing with fire. By the standards of most on the political right, I am a “squish” on criminal justice. But my squishiness is procedural. At all stages — investigation, arrest, trial, imprisonment — I want the Constitution to be followed to the letter. But that is not the same thing as wanting criminals to be ignored, released without charge, or given light sentences. The ideal setup is one in which the people who plague our society are punished sternly for their deeds, after a fair hearing in which they are presumed to be innocent. I think that, on balance, most Americans agree. I also think that, if the first part of that equation is not met, Americans will come to care a lot less about the second. The fastest route to illiberalism and vigilantism is not the sedulous delivery of order and justice, but the abdication of the government’s primary role. Add into this figures such as Vi Lyles, who seem far more interesting in the feelings of criminals than of the people they torment, and you have a recipe for disaster. The correct response to this was horror, condemnation, and a vow to do better in the future. It is not a bunch of mawkish hippy crap. That silent majority we hear so much about still exists, and if you want it to start talking — and loud — this is exactly how bring that about.