STEVEN DEN BESTE on resisting criminals and why “don’t get involved” approaches are destructive:

I think that an activist citizenry, one which is engaged, one where individuals feel a bond to their fellow citizens and are willing to defend them and to make sacrifices for them, is greatly to be preferred to one which is passive and unmotivated and fearful.

That was what moved the passengers of Flight 93. They didn’t sit passively; they fought back. Because they did, their jet crashed into an open field instead of into something large and important on the ground full of people.

So what do you get when you punish people who are actually willing to do that for their citizens? A couple of things.

One thing you get is a lot more crime of that kind. Even criminals are making something like a cost-benefit analysis when they decide whether to commit crimes, and if you reduce the potential cost, then crime becomes more attractive.

But there’s something deeper, something more subtle and far more damaging: you begin to destroy the basic camaraderie and commitment among citizens which I feel is essential for a successful civil society. You erode the idea that we’re all in this together.

You teach people that it’s wrong to care. You tell them that the right course of action is to “not get involved”. When they see a crime being committed, then if they try to stop it they may end up in prison, but there’s no punishment for looking the other direction and not seeing. And thus fewer people will get involved.

I don’t want to live in a society like that. I don’t want to live in a society where the Kitty Genovese case is not only not considered newsworthy but is actually considered an example of civil virtue.

Me either.