Understanding Crime Control on Public Transportation

What does it really take to manage crime on subways and public transport systems? On Monday, reports surfaced about another incident in a New York City subway where a passenger was set on fire. But, that didn’t seem to capture the entire situation.

A homeless man, who initially claimed he had been attacked, became uncommunicative when police inquired further. Was he perhaps attempting to draw attention to himself by igniting his clothes? In the grim surroundings of a subway, one can’t help but wonder if this was a malicious act or something more concerning.

Though most subway rides in New York or Washington, D.C., don’t feel like scenes from “Mad Max,” passengers often encounter real violence, ranging from erratic behavior to actual attacks, sometimes even lethal.

The recent horrifying attack on Bethany McGee, who was set on fire while on a Chicago Blue Line train, was no figment of imagination. Similarly tragic was the incident involving Irina Zalutka, who lost her life on a commuter train in Charlotte, North Carolina, this summer. And let’s not forget Debrina Khawam, who suffered a similar fate on the New York subway last December.

None of these women had a reason to fear for their safety. Yet, their commutes turned into scenes of unimaginable horror. This outcome, sadly, was somewhat foreseeable—not due to paranoia, but because of the common awareness of risks in transit environments.

How can anyone feel secure if they cross paths with a repeat offender, like the man who tried to set fire to 26-year-old Maggie in Chicago, who had already been arrested 72 times? Or Irina’s attacker, with a record of “only” 14 arrests? If those in power allow these individuals to roam freely, what protections do average commuters really have?

It’s frustrating; their fates have often been sealed by judges who opted against keeping dangerous individuals behind bars.

And it’s not just the criminals. Judges and politicians who permit these offenders to walk among us are equally to blame, enabling them to ambush unsuspecting victims. For example, Maggie attempted to escape her assailant, but he caught her and, tragically, set her ablaze.

In North Carolina, lawmakers are at least trying to break this cycle of violence by ensuring that individuals with histories like Irina’s killer are contained—whether in prison or mental institutions—before they pose a threat.

Irina’s law aims to tackle issues like cashless bail, mandates thorough psychiatric evaluations, and addresses the potential for criminals, whose mental health issues may lead them to commit crimes unknowingly. It even seeks to revive the death penalty in North Carolina, a measure that has faced legal challenges for nearly two decades.

This legislation represents a step in the right direction, and similar reforms across other states could help prevent crimes like recent subway attacks.

Additionally, there’s a federal level of responsibility—specifically concerning strict immigration enforcement. Sebastian Zapeta-Khalil, charged with Khawam’s murder, was an illegal immigrant who shouldn’t have been in the country at all.

Ultimately, we need unwavering intolerance—not only for violent or repeat offenders, but also towards the judicial system that sometimes fails to hold them accountable.

In some states, judges are elected, and voters have the power to express their views on the responsibility of judges for the crimes committed by those they release. State mechanisms also allow for the impeachment of judges who endanger public safety through leniency.

If a judge’s decisions jeopardize community safety, then there should be consequences—impeachment and removal, as necessary. It hasn’t taken long for lenient judges to get the message.

Even in jurisdictions where judges aren’t directly elected, they are appointed by politicians who ultimately must answer to the voters. I’m sure those politicians have taken note of heightened public sentiment on these matters.

Not too long ago, progressive groups were advocating for “defunding the police” or “abolishing bail,” often proposing the release of a wider array of arrestees. Generally, in many areas, these ideas have not resonated well with the public, but their champions seem to rely more on legal technicalities than on public approval.

This moment of populism in our national dialogue stems largely from a deep distrust in our leaders. State and city officials have, in many instances, let down the American public, transforming public transportation into potential venues for violent acts against innocent individuals like Irina Zalutka.