Is a liberal city council soft on crime or are the recent bills justified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has always been soft on crime

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“At what point will the police step back and say hey this is what you voted for?”

Never. Ha, do you know any police? They are so hungry for power. NYPD did go on strike but it was a failure for them.

I sympathize with your concerns because poverty=crime and if people don’t do something about poverty then crime will continue regardless, but the idea that harsh sentences and stronger police presence reduces crime isn’t necessarily true. Violent crimes went down when NYPD went on strike, and when we slap somebody with a felony, it makes it harder for them to get out of poverty. Recidivism rates are high. I don’t know exactly how these laws are impacting crime rates but the way we do things now is wrong.

^^^

All of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) 15 years is not a slap on the wrist.
2) No one will be released without having proven to a judge that they're rehabilitated.

So do you think DC judges can't be trusted? If so, please address the specifics of the judiciary's ability to rule on this.

Finding a way forward for people who have matured and been rehabilitated to be released and take up a useful role in society - that's about reducing crime, not increasing it.

But the key thing is to stop assuming this is somehow about going and opening up the prison doors and letting out anyone who wants to go. People have to apply. They can only apply after being incarcerated 15 years. A judge has to rule on their case. It's not easy.

Did they add the clause Mary Cheh requested that the judge could/should consider the nature of the original crime? The very same Charles Allen obnoxiously interfered with judicial process and scolded a judge for doing this under the previous, very generous statue for offender's under 18.

[Anonymous]

So who is going to primary Allen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. DC is now 48% black.

2. Allen says that of the 52 released none ,not a single individual, has committed a crime. Sure Jan.

There are organization that track this info.

Uh huh. With no agendas whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Saying that capitalism causes poverty is verifiably wrong.

Saying that racism causes crime is ridiculous and is actually racist as the vast majority of any oppressed group aren't criminals.

[Anonymous]

Antwan Pitts will qualify. He was 22 at the time of his latest crime. Does the bill include review of his crime by the judge, before considering reduction in sentencing?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/man-convicted-in-brutal-rape-during-home-invasion-in-dc/2016/06/08/307629f0-2807-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html

"During the trial, the rape victim recounted that her attacker, who was wearing fuzzy knit gloves, choked her, covered her mouth and dragged her along the hardwood floor of her home as she gasped for air. She begged him not to leave her two young daughters without a mother.

“I thought I was going to die,” she said.

A surgeon from MedStar Washington Hospital Center testified in meticulous detail about cutting through the victim’s facial muscles to repair several fractures to her eye socket and cheekbone. One juror, who winced and turned pale during the testimony, said she felt queasy. "

[Anonymous]

The Antwan Pitts case is Exhibit A as to why DC's juvenile crime laws have failed. In May of 2016, the Post did an extensive profile on him---he committed numerous violent crimes prior to committing the violent assault and rape that landed him behind bars. Had he been incarcerated for those earlier violent offenses instead of getting multiple second chances under DC's juvenile offenders law as it is applied, he would not have been roaming the streets to injure and traumatize his victim for life.


From the description of his early upbringing and likely permanent brain damage from prenatal substance exposures, the chances that he will ever be able to be rehabilitated are minimal. Yet DC's juvenile crime law, as applied, let Antwan Pitts roam free. Why should DC residents trust that this new proposal would not result in the same travesties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Antwan Pitts case is Exhibit A as to why DC's juvenile crime laws have failed. In May of 2016, the Post did an extensive profile on him---he committed numerous violent crimes prior to committing the violent assault and rape that landed him behind bars. Had he been incarcerated for those earlier violent offenses instead of getting multiple second chances under DC's juvenile offenders law as it is applied, he would not have been roaming the streets to injure and traumatize his victim for life.


From the description of his early upbringing and likely permanent brain damage from prenatal substance exposures, the chances that he will ever be able to be rehabilitated are minimal. Yet DC's juvenile crime law, as applied, let Antwan Pitts roam free. Why should DC residents trust that this new proposal would not result in the same travesties?

Wow Charles Allen and almost all of his cronies blocked Chehs proposal that the judge would consider the nature of the crime - like Pitts above. Allen says he hiimself was the victim of a gun crime and these are "all serious crimes" is he equating street robbery to home invasion and sadistic sexual.assaullt as per abovr?????????????????????:

"The council rejected amendments proposed by Cheh to require judges to give greater weight to the voices of victims and the nature of the offenses when considering early release"
"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I sympathize with your concerns because poverty=crime and if people don’t do something about poverty then crime will continue regardless,

Therein lies the crux of the progressive argument:

- racism and capitalism cause poverty
- poverty causes crime

Therefore, so-called criminals are actually victims, and the real criminals are racist white male capitalists.

Of course, this analysis treats criminals -- especially black ones -- as inert objects devoid of any responsibility for their actions.

Three things are strongly correlated against someone being in poverty: finishing high school, get a full-time job, and not having kids until 21. All of these are active personal choices.

I am really shocked that this day and age, people can hold the opinion that capitalism causes poverty. This is like saying exercising causes poor health.

[Anonymous]

Charles Allen says he too has been the victim of a gun crime, so he can issue platitudes to heinous crime victim's families like "Keeping them in prison won't bring the victim back". What the?

[Anonymous]

Argh. I wish someone would primary him. Really? Getting mugged is equivalent to being brutally raped and having your face bashed in so severely that your jaw had to be reconstructed and your eye socket put back together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Argh. I wish someone would primary him. Really? Getting mugged is equivalent to being brutally raped and having your face bashed in so severely that your jaw had to be reconstructed and your eye socket put back together?

Yep, I know. I called his office to express my disgust this past spring and had a very polite conversation with the intern or advisor or whatnot who tried earnestly to inform me of how misguided I am. What horrfies me about "Allen's Law" is not the worthwhile idea or sentencing reform or reformation in custody or even redemption, but how far he moved the dial on this. Why couldnt he compromise that the judge consider the original crime when considering sentencing reduction? This isnwhat Cheh proposed, and he SQUASHED. When we are talking about violent sex crimes especially like Antwan, where we know the recidivism rate for sex offense is so very high, it makes me think he is like one of those creepy judges eager to give rapists a pat on the wrist who then reoffend. He hasnt codified anything about counseling, treatment, chemical sterilization; he just wants to "let them have their shot" at early release with no thought given the nature of the offense that put them away in the first place. He actually lectured (this is documented) a judge previously under the stricter statute that he's now replaced with the current more lenient up to age 25 law, for considering the crime during an early release judgment. The.crime was raping a DC child in front her mother in a home invasion. He didnt think it was "fair" the judge took that into consderation and got super finger-waggy and scoldy with the judge. Anyway, hes now made sure no matter how reprehensible the deed, it shall not flavor the decicion of whelther to grant an early release to the community and survivors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“At what point will the police step back and say hey this is what you voted for?”

Never. Ha, do you know any police? They are so hungry for power. NYPD did go on strike but it was a failure for them.

I sympathize with your concerns because poverty=crime and if people don’t do something about poverty then crime will continue regardless, but the idea that harsh sentences and stronger police presence reduces crime isn’t necessarily true.

And yet, mysteriously, the “tough on crime” policies of the 1990’s were followed by 20 years of declining crime rates. Even in the face of two recessions.

Fortunately I don’t have a dog in this fight. Crime & quality of life concerns led me to sell my DC house this year. You couldn’t pay me to live there anymore.

We don't care that you left. People are still moving in. Tough on crime had nothing to do with the decrease in crime. It was the economy. You should know that since you try to be so smart. Maybe you should even pick up a book on the criminal justice system. It might help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“At what point will the police step back and say hey this is what you voted for?”

Never. Ha, do you know any police? They are so hungry for power. NYPD did go on strike but it was a failure for them.

I sympathize with your concerns because poverty=crime and if people don’t do something about poverty then crime will continue regardless, but the idea that harsh sentences and stronger police presence reduces crime isn’t necessarily true.

And yet, mysteriously, the “tough on crime” policies of the 1990’s were followed by 20 years of declining crime rates. Even in the face of two recessions.

Fortunately I don’t have a dog in this fight. Crime & quality of life concerns led me to sell my DC house this year. You couldn’t pay me to live there anymore.

We don't care that you left. People are still moving in. Tough on crime had nothing to do with the decrease in crime. It was the economy. You should know that since you try to be so smart. Maybe you should even pick up a book on the criminal justice system. It might help.

I remember when DC had the nickname "Murder 1" and Meridian Hill/Malcolm X Park was nicknamed Murder Park. The good ol'days?