The 4 Phases of the ‘Spiral of Death’ Facing Our Nation’s Largest Cities

The 4 Phases of the ‘Spiral of Death’ Facing Our Nation’s Largest Cities

by Ken W. Good

Across America, some of our major metropolitan cities are facing a crisis created by their own politicians seemingly intent on destroying public safety, while chasing away both businesses and citizens. Unable to keep up with lost revenue, increasingly, we will see municipalities getting overstretched and facing collapse if course corrections are not made. This dire situation is analogous to the “death spiral” experienced by ant colonies.

Well-known for their self-organizing structure, ants search for food by following the ant in front of it. This behavior also allows them to find their way back to their nests. Sometimes a slight deviation occurs, typically caused by an environmental trigger, and an ant mill forms. When this happens, a group of ants will be separated from the main foraging party. If they lose track of the group’s pheromone trail, they will default to following one another, forming a continuously rotating circle. This circle is commonly known as a “death spiral” because the ants often die of eventual exhaustion.

In the case of the death spiral of our some of our major cities, its pathology can be broken down into four phases.

Phase One: Releasing More Criminals Will Make Us Safer

The beginnings of our large cities’ spiral of death can be traced back to 2001, when federal litigation was filed claiming that California’s state prison system was not providing sufficient medical care to its prison population. For a decade, several alternatives were attempted without success. In 2010, a three-judge panel found that California was not providing sufficient medical care to its current jail population and ordered the state to either increase prison capacity or reduce the prison population down to 137.5% of its designed capacity. The case was appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the panel in a 5-4 opinion. Noteworthy were two dissenting opinions which argued that that the federal government should not be micromanaging state criminal proceedings, nor should it sanction the release of thousands of convicted criminals.

Over the next several years, the California legislature floated various bills in an attempt to reduce its jail population. In 2011, it passed AB 109, which moved certain convicted criminals from state prisons to county jails if the remainder of their sentences were 10-15 years in length for non-violent offenses. Unfortunately, because county jails were not designed for long-term housing, they became the subject of further litigation, with the claim that counties were not providing proper medical care for inmates who had been transferred from state prisons.

In 2014, California approved Proposition 47, which reclassified certain felony offenses to misdemeanors. Next, the district attorneys of certain metropolitan cities including Los Angeles and San Francisco, chose to no longer prosecute these offenses, including theft of less than $950. In 2016, Proposition 57, which allowed early parole consideration for some “nonviolent” felons, was approved in a further attempt to reduce the jail population.

Both left-wing and right-wing think tanks championed the changes in California. They argued that they would save taxpayers’ money, while the reduction of the state prison population would make California safer. While common sense would have strongly suggested that releasing more criminals would increase crime, a vocal chorus claimed that the opposite result was virtually guaranteed. While this was unfolding, other jurisdictions, including New York and Harris County, Texas, joined the push to enact soft on crime policies.

To see the rest of the story CLICK HERE.

Update- San Francisco Doom Loop Quickly Spiraling (January 17, 2024)- CLICK HERE.