DC will pay residents not to commit crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like they have to participate in regular therapy in order to be eligible for the stipend.

Is this true? I hope so. Then at least this plan will be slightly more palatable than pure extortion. Without the therapy, do people really think that a meger check from the government will deter people from committing a crime? If that were the case, why haven't the plethora of public assistance programs currently in place had that effect? Seriously. If this problem was really about money, there a lot of wonderful programs already out there that subsidize those who need it.

As descibed,, the program requires therapy and behavioral tools and includes mentoring before a stipend is paid. The money encourages them to complete the program, which is training or rehabilitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if the program works....then what?

Then DC becomes a less violent place.

You mean like a lifetime stipend for those thugs?

Sure - the thugs could unionize; then collectively bargain for ever-increasing extortion payments to not mug people. Just Like mafia "protection money." I mean, why not? It works that way in Sicily.

Brilliant progressive thinking, yet again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama's "criminal justice reform" has already released 6,000 convicted felons onto America's streets.

Convicts - who would otherwise be in prison right now.

And DeBlasio is busy dis-mantling the exact programs that vastly reduced crime in NYC.

So it is no surprise that the crime rate is going up.

We are now led to believe that the solution to increasing crime is simply to "throw money at the problem" ??

This "solution" is utterly stupid. If this idea is representative of "progressive thinking," then count me out.

Yep. Those non-violent petty drug users in jail for 30 years for having 2oz of weed are sure to beat up all of the hard working gentrifying folks on the Metro. Everybody steer clear of the mother of the Denver Broncos player who was in jail for helping her mother sell drugs; she's gonna take us all out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like they have to participate in regular therapy in order to be eligible for the stipend.

Is this true? I hope so. Then at least this plan will be slightly more palatable than pure extortion. Without the therapy, do people really think that a meger check from the government will deter people from committing a crime? If that were the case, why haven't the plethora of public assistance programs currently in place had that effect? Seriously. If this problem was really about money, there a lot of wonderful programs already out there that subsidize those who need it.

IT'S WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID TO DO.

THE STIPEND IS COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM---NOT FOR HAVING A CLEAN RECORD, OR "NOT COMMITTING A CRIME."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's "criminal justice reform" has already released 6,000 convicted felons onto America's streets.

Convicts - who would otherwise be in prison right now.

And DeBlasio is busy dis-mantling the exact programs that vastly reduced crime in NYC.

So it is no surprise that the crime rate is going up.

We are now led to believe that the solution to increasing crime is simply to "throw money at the problem" ??

This "solution" is utterly stupid. If this idea is representative of "progressive thinking," then count me out.

Yep. Those non-violent petty drug users in jail for 30 years for having 2oz of weed are sure to beat up all of the hard working gentrifying folks on the Metro. Everybody steer clear of the mother of the Denver Broncos player who was in jail for helping her mother sell drugs; she's gonna take us all out.

I prefer to call the non-violent small time dealers "undocumented pharmacists."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's "criminal justice reform" has already released 6,000 convicted felons onto America's streets.

Convicts - who would otherwise be in prison right now.

And DeBlasio is busy dis-mantling the exact programs that vastly reduced crime in NYC.

So it is no surprise that the crime rate is going up.

We are now led to believe that the solution to increasing crime is simply to "throw money at the problem" ??

This "solution" is utterly stupid. If this idea is representative of "progressive thinking," then count me out.

I know, right? DeBlasio was clearly responsible for the uptick in crime in DC last year.

Laugh it up. The dead bodies will pile up at an increasing rate in DC; just as they are in Baltimore. And NYC. Policies, like elections, have consequences.

But you go on; make jokes.

Did you read the article? In California, when they implemented the program, the homicide and assault rates decreased dramatically. It may not work as well in DC as it did in CA, but there's no reason to think that the program will result in dead bodies piling up. More generally, there's no reason to think that DC is like Baltimore or will become like Baltimore.

I don't give a damn how they do it in California. Paying criminals not to commit crimes is a stupid idea.

You can pay a mobster protection money (extortion) and they will not beat you up. Same exact thing.

I have a better idea: arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate. At least they will not be victimizing the public while they are locked up.

Incarceration is not effective, except to continue the cycle. You should know this by now.

I have never been victimized by an incarcerated criminal. Have you?

So I beg to differ that incarceration is not effective, as you claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never been victimized by an incarcerated criminal. Have you?

So I beg to differ that incarceration is not effective, as you claim.

Incarceration isn't usually a successful rehabilitative tool -- therapy and behavioral tools and mentoring can be. This program teaches skills and tools needed to be good citizens, which benefits both the individual and society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They are being paid a stipend to participate in a program designed for at-risk folk. A condition of the program is not committing a crime. Am I missing something?

Nope. But there's no outrage to be mined from that, so it's spun as paying people not to commit crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never been victimized by an incarcerated criminal. Have you?

So I beg to differ that incarceration is not effective, as you claim.

Incarceration isn't usually a successful rehabilitative tool -- therapy and behavioral tools and mentoring can be. This program teaches skills and tools needed to be good citizens, which benefits both the individual and society.

Recidivism rates hover around 40% overall. On that basis alone, incarceration could be seen as 60% effective.

However, recidivism is only ONE objective, among many, justifying incarceration and parole. Others include:

-prevention. Prisoners are not on our streets (or metro) victimizing others

-deterant. Potential criminals are deterred for fear of prison.

-retribution. Or call it revenge. An eye for an eye. It isn't a new idea; like it or not. And in many states, criminal proceedings are still captioned "The People v. . ."

And finally, yes, there is also rehabilitation. Don't pretend it is the sole purpose of incarceration though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never been victimized by an incarcerated criminal. Have you?

So I beg to differ that incarceration is not effective, as you claim.

Incarceration isn't usually a successful rehabilitative tool -- therapy and behavioral tools and mentoring can be. This program teaches skills and tools needed to be good citizens, which benefits both the individual and society.

Recidivism rates hover around 40% overall. On that basis alone, incarceration could be seen as 60% effective.

However, recidivism is only ONE objective, among many, justifying incarceration and parole. Others include:

-prevention. Prisoners are not on our streets (or metro) victimizing others

-deterant. Potential criminals are deterred for fear of prison.

-retribution. Or call it revenge. An eye for an eye. It isn't a new idea; like it or not. And in many states, criminal proceedings are still captioned "The People v. . ."

And finally, yes, there is also rehabilitation. Don't pretend it is the sole purpose of incarceration though.

I'm not sure what your point is, because this program is not for criminals, it is for people who are at-risk for becoming criminals and teaching them how not to do so. It is not an alternative to incarceration or court-ordered, it is a separate program designed to reduce and prevent crime before it happens, not after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never been victimized by an incarcerated criminal. Have you?

So I beg to differ that incarceration is not effective, as you claim.

Incarceration isn't usually a successful rehabilitative tool -- therapy and behavioral tools and mentoring can be. This program teaches skills and tools needed to be good citizens, which benefits both the individual and society.

Recidivism rates hover around 40% overall. On that basis alone, incarceration could be seen as 60% effective.

However, recidivism is only ONE objective, among many, justifying incarceration and parole. Others include:

-prevention. Prisoners are not on our streets (or metro) victimizing others

-deterant. Potential criminals are deterred for fear of prison.

-retribution. Or call it revenge. An eye for an eye. It isn't a new idea; like it or not. And in many states, criminal proceedings are still captioned "The People v. . ."

And finally, yes, there is also rehabilitation. Don't pretend it is the sole purpose of incarceration though.

I'm not sure what your point is, because this program is not for criminals, it is for people who are at-risk for becoming criminals and teaching them how not to do so. It is not an alternative to incarceration or court-ordered, it is a separate program designed to reduce and prevent crime before it happens, not after.

So do they racially profile to determine who will commit crimes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should pay not to have babies until after college

Teen birth rates are down. Granted, they're not as low as with white teens (who tend to abort) but it's still decreasing.

I was wondering who is the "they" and "them" referred to all through this thread. Apparently it's not "white teens."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should pay not to have babies until after college

Teen birth rates are down. Granted, they're not as low as with white teens (who tend to abort) but it's still decreasing.

I was wondering who is the "they" and "them" referred to all through this thread. Apparently it's not "white teens."

I'm just glad the flat out racist comments were finally deleted. This place can be so disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's "criminal justice reform" has already released 6,000 convicted felons onto America's streets.

Convicts - who would otherwise be in prison right now.

And DeBlasio is busy dis-mantling the exact programs that vastly reduced crime in NYC.

So it is no surprise that the crime rate is going up.

We are now led to believe that the solution to increasing crime is simply to "throw money at the problem" ??

This "solution" is utterly stupid. If this idea is representative of "progressive thinking," then count me out.

I know, right? DeBlasio was clearly responsible for the uptick in crime in DC last year.

Laugh it up. The dead bodies will pile up at an increasing rate in DC; just as they are in Baltimore. And NYC. Policies, like elections, have consequences.

But you go on; make jokes.

Did you read the article? In California, when they implemented the program, the homicide and assault rates decreased dramatically. It may not work as well in DC as it did in CA, but there's no reason to think that the program will result in dead bodies piling up. More generally, there's no reason to think that DC is like Baltimore or will become like Baltimore.

I don't give a damn how they do it in California. Paying criminals not to commit crimes is a stupid idea.

You can pay a mobster protection money (extortion) and they will not beat you up. Same exact thing.

I have a better idea: arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate. At least they will not be victimizing the public while they are locked up.

Incarceration is not effective, except to continue the cycle. You should know this by now.

I have never been victimized by an incarcerated criminal. Have you?

So I beg to differ that incarceration is not effective, as you claim.

Are you really that stupid or just like to play stupid? Majority of the criminals, even the violent ones eventually come out of prison and commit other crimes. If we can prevent even a few from becoming lifetime law breakers, I think it's worth the money.

[Anonymous]

I think it's a great idea. You can either pay for this stipend or pay to house them in jail plus deal with the aftermath of crime. I think the stipend will come out cheaper.