To be smart on crime, we should not be in a position of constantly reacting to crime after it happens. We should be looking at preventing crime before it happens.

Punishment is the last and the least effective instrument in the hands of the legislator for the prevention of crime.

The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide.

The act of policing is, in order to punish less often, to punish more severely.

Two million felons have tried to buy a gun and, because of the background check, have been denied.

There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important. We’re not gonna let people plan violence or attack each other or do bad things.

How accurately can the law fix the crime? There has to be a mechanism for very fast action. The law is like this: catch them and punish them.

When you go to your local police officer, your police chief in the town you live in, big or small, he will tell you the vast majority of the weapons recovered at a crime scene are either stolen weapons, and/or they have been ‚lost‘ or stolen.

‚Getting smart on crime‘ does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crimes.

Should there be cameras everywhere in outdoor streets? My personal view is having cameras in inner cities is a very good thing. In the case of London, petty crime has gone down. They catch terrorists because of it. And if something really bad happens, most of the time you can figure out who did it.

For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists. Why? Because the instincts that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of equilibrium.

The proactive approach to a mistake is to acknowledge it instantly, correct and learn from it.