I think we are in agreement that dangerous violent criminals should not be let loose on civil society.
Good. Are habitual non-violent offenders (burglars, robbers, shoplifters, drug dealers, etc.) just to be tolerated by the rest of society?
What is lacking here are considerations regarding the causes of criminal behaviour and remedies beyond application of punishment.
In my view those are the most important, but they are largely outside the purview of government. Morals, ethics, and values are instilled by family, church, and other civil institutions. They cannot be taught by the great grey bureaucracies. That is part of what has failed here in the US.
The comparatively high incidence of (violent) crime in the US, even today and despite the "land of the free" having the highest incarceration rate worldwide, begs the question for the root causes.
Because government's only viable role in public safety is applying the law after the offense has occurred. There is no pre-crime policing. Presumption of innocence and right to privacy among other key components of our society prevent that, thankfully.
There always appears a pattern of adverserial thinking in public discourse today. One side vs. the other side. Tiring. But policing, public policy, government is not a football match of one side vs. another. It's a complex web of multifactored causes and interactions.
It's adversarial because so many bad ideas have been implemented that had obvious unintended consequences and those same ideas are continually promulgated by the next generation who are blind to the failings in recent history. Sincerity is not enough. Solutions must be viable in the real world. It must be accepted that some problems cannot be solved by government.
Looking, again, at the US, the majority of violent crime happens in the poorest areas by the poorest members of society perpetrated on the poorest members of society.
Yes, despite decades of spending and investment in various government programs intended to help. Rather than proposing more of the same, it would be sensible to take a rational look at why do many previous programs have failed to improve the situation (and in some cases have arguably made it worse).
You cited Chicago above. I was there this month. Downtown, in the most affluent neighborhoods, you're pretty much as safe as in any European city.
Perhaps in a very small area.
Between every two blocks there is a police car parked with the blue lights on 24/7.
Pics.
Very weird, to European eyes, to be honest. When you get to the less well off areas the situation changes. You hardly ever see a police car in areas where barber shop windows have holes from gun shots.
Do you not recall the riots of 2020? The "defund the police" movement?
And we - obviously - never even went to the really bad neighborhoods in the west or on the South Side. The people in these areas have no trust in police.
Or is it that they fear retribution from the criminal gangs? Snitches get stitches (or worse) as the saying goes. This is part of the breakdown of the civil society. If people are unwilling to stand up for what is right and good in their own neighborhoods, how can they expect outsiders to fix things?
Even the victims will not cooperate with an investigation against the perpetrator. They fear for their lives and are very much aware that the police won't make sure they are secure.
It is virtually impossible to ensure that. During the jury selection process for the previously mentioned trial, each prospective juror in the pool of about 150 was called by number. When called, the juror stood in the full courtroom in front of members of the public, press, the accused on trial, the various lawyers, etc. and stated their full name, town of residence, occupation, spouse's name and occupation, and age. This allows the lawyers to start paring down the jury and removing people they think are biased. It also puts the eventual jurors at risk. Yet each of the 12 (plus 3 alternates) accept that risk in order to perform that important civic duty.
Looking, again, at that National Murder Rate Chart - why was crime so much lower in the early 60s? Why did it go through the roof?
Look at the social turmoil of that era and the resulting government programs. What changes were initiated that started breaking down the core family structure in certain segments of society that were previously very family oriented?
Why did it follow a similar trajectory in most industrialized countries?
Got links to such comparative data? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Hint: It wasn't enforcement.
I never said it was. Enforcement is just the main tool our government has. It doesn't often "fix" the individual who is incarcerated. I'd argue that it is up to the individual and their family/friends to do that. Of the cases I've seen where criminals reformed themselves successfully, it was due to the influence of a close friend, family member, or pastor coupled with innate will to turn themselves around. If a person doesn't want to change no external force can make them. Some (most?) criminals cannot be "fixed." Hence removal from civil society becomes the only viable option to protect the rest of society from them.
I don't live near Jackson and haven't gone there for decades. I have flow in and out of the Jackson airport a couple times for business.
I generally don't watch the local news because it reminds me of where I live. I recorded one news program last week to watch because I heard about a killing in Meridian (25 miles from my home). I won't repeat the details so you guys don't call me racist. 
