On August 22nd, 2025, a Ukrainian refugee, Iryna Zarutska, was slain on a light rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina. A week later shocking live footage of the incident went viral on social media that showed her being stabbed in the neck by a black male, Decarlos Brown, as onlookers did nothing. And on September 10th, conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk was murdered in Utah during a campus event, the horrifying details of which were also captured live. Both victims were failed by law enforcement, and also are illustrative the shortcomings or insufficiency of state governments at handling or preventing serious crime.
On social media, commenters act like there’s always a simple solution or quick fix to these kind of problems. Sure, if you’re unconstrained by the Constitution, the only limit is your imagination. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence limits the ability to proactively prevent these type of situations. Society has collectivity decided that the occasional stabbing or shooting is the price to pay for individual freedom. Same for dog ownership. Dogs cause many injuries and some deaths every year, yet this is deemed acceptable by society, as the alternative of overreach is worse. Banning some breeds or requiring obedience training to own a dog is too much to ask. There is no right or wrong answer here; it’s just a matter of tradeoffs of freedom vs safety.
In the case of violent crime, poor policing is commonly blamed. To some extent, yes, but the US has generally good policing compared to much of the rest of world, with well-armed cops, lots of prisons, private security, plus citizen gun owners. The US incarceration rate is already close to the highest in the world. Rather, the issue has more to do with poor demographics and a low-trust society, made worse by drug usage. The Japanese or UK police would be useless against America’s hardened, aggressive criminals. Conversely, if the demographics were swapped, crime in the US would plunge.
Because so many people are already incarcerated, there probably isn’t much room for marginal gains in crime prevention, short of suspending the Constitution, as in the case of El Salvador. Or changing the demographics. None of these has much of a chance of happening. America has many dysfunctional, non-contributing individuals–such as the mentally ill, drug users, and the homeless–but they are not necessarily breaking any laws. While they may be more vulnerable to criminality later, there is little that can be done preemptively. A “one-strike-and-out” policy for anyone, regardless of age, convicted of a violent crime could be effective, but it would likely conflict with the Eighth Amendment.
The Charlie Kirk shooting also shows the limits of preemptive policing. The suspected shooter, Tyler Robinson, was a good student and didn’t appear to have any outwardly obvious risk factors. This is a common theme of these assailants, such as Luigi Mangione, who in early 2025 ambushed and fatally shot United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Or Thomas Matthew Crooks, who in July 2024 almost succeeded at assassinating Donald Trump during a campaign rally. There may be some radicalization online, but nothing stands out. No rap sheet.
Another factor which came up is Brown’s history of criminality. This is again typical of habitual state-level offenders. Due to parole, mitigating factors, and sentencing discretion, it’s not uncommon for someone to reoffend many times. This is one of the downsides of states’ rights, in that in that many crimes are not punished as severely as deserved, compared to much more punitive federal sentencing. Short of 1st degree murder, sentencing for violent crime at the state level drops off too fast. Sentencing for aggravated assault is surprisingly lenient despite the outward severity of the crime. For example, “In California, aggravated assault (Penal Code 245) is a serious felony offense with penalties including up to four years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.” This does not seem long enough.
The feds have no trouble issuing huge sentences even for things which are non violent or seemingly quaint, like moving small quantities of drugs across state lines. Or obscuring the origins of money. Had he merely transported a small amount of drugs across state lines with the intent to distribute, he would have never gotten out for decades, but assaulting someone as a ‘state offence’ is only punishable by a few years. Indeed, his criminal history included three felony convictions, as evidence of the failure of this policy.
In addition to no parole in the feds, there are many ways to enhance a sentence, such as prior convictions or aggravating factors, like the use of a weapon. Punishing violent state-level crimes as punitively as federal non-violent crimes seems like a no-brainer here. But again, the problem is district attorneys have considerable discretion in sentencing, compared to judges in federal cases, who defer to sentencing guidelines (United States v. Booker 2005 made such sidelines advisory instead of mandatory). Moreover, cash-strapped state governments may be inclined to issue shorter sentences or release criminals early to save costs or prevent overcrowding.
Although the murder of Charlie Kirk was a state crime, the FBI still was involved. The state of Utah waived its autonomy or independence in allowing the FBI to help. It’s not without precedent for the feds to intercede when state police lack the resources, and the crimes are potentially of national significance. This hit on Kirk’s life, broadcast in graphic detail , has potentially societally destabilizing effects due to the politization of the matter. A case can be made that the feds should likewise assist cash-strapped state governments in building and staffing the necessary prison infrastructure for housing these violent criminals. El Salvador has set a blueprint of how this can be done, but expand it nationwide, with multiple locations of such federally funded prisons.
But his death is also illustrative of the failure of the FBI. Instead of the feds devoting so much resources and time on victimless crimes or things which don’t affect anyone in any material way, they need to start investigating these Discord chat logs and organizations such as the DSA more closely. Instead, the feds will go to the ends of the earth to track the flow of some obscure financial transaction or supposed ‘hate speech’, while seemingly oblivious to threats by the left, until too late.