MCPD released 14 and 16 year olds who committed armed robbery in Gaithersburg to their parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim was unable to take the perps down. Of course then the poor victim in fear for their life would have had the book thrown at them. Modern American justice.

No, no. Progressive justice. Leave the rest of us normies out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been the trend the last ten to 15 years not to incarcerate juveniles. Many juvenile facilities have been closed since the juvenile incarceration rate has rapidly declined.

The number of incarcerated youth declined 77% from more than 108,000 in 2000 to about 25,000 in 2020, according to the data from the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

There needs to be a system that isn't incarceration in juvenile jails and isn't released to your parents. There needs to be a medium option where maybe you go home at night with a monitoring system but during the day you go to a day treatment program and get counseling and mandatory schooling. Right now that 14 and 16 year olds are going to their junior high school and high school and bragging to their friends how nothing happened to them. If you are willing to hold up a stranger with a ghost gun, imagine how you act in a classroom and how disruptive you are to other students trying to learn.

I think any crime committed by a juvenile with a weapon is worthy of detention. I can see your point for other nonviolent offenses tho.

Releasing kids who have shown the wherewithal to find their ways to guns does seem like the strangest thing in the world. It says to me they have no place to hold them and obviously no one wants to foster them (nor would that be safer). We do need to start building juvenile facilities with proper wrap around services and accountability again.

Or charge them as adults and send them to prison.

This is the answer. The most peace this country has seen was when Clinton signed into law the Three Strikes rule. What followed that was the lowest crime trend ever.

Go back to what works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Releasing kids who have shown the wherewithal to find their ways to guns does seem like the strangest thing in the world. It says to me they have no place to hold them and obviously no one wants to foster them (nor would that be safer). We do need to start building juvenile facilities with proper wrap around services and accountability again.


Or charge them as adults and send them to prison.

Or, we create juvenile detention facilities that are seriously committed to repatterning behavior---not just holding pens where the kids can while away their days playing Grand Theft Auto and learning further criminal behavior from other miscreants. Serious repatterning involves seriously relentless structure plus nurture. Tiered systems of privileges tied to achieving educational and behavioral milestones. Therapy and therapeutic interventions to try to deal with kids who have prenatal exposure brain damage and/or trauma that impairs their ability to regulate emotions and appreciate cause and effect consequences. Educational milestones that can lead to skilled trade work and the ability to earn an immediate living wage. And for all of them---appropriate societal reparative work in the form of community service---cleaning graffiti, picking up trash. But in no event should violent teens just be part of a Catch & Release that sends them back to the homes and environments that produced the behavior. And for those teens who won't avail themselves of the structure/nurture options offered in juvenile detention, then adult prison may be the end result.

I've maintained this for years. Repatterning behavior is a great way to put it! I've thought that incarcerated youth should have to reach certain wickets provided in the youth facility, ie GED, counseling. job training, community service, and an exit plan--further schooling, type of employment etc. They would need to demonstrate some maturity, attainment and good behavior for release. Otherwise, their release could continue to be reevaluated by a board, like a parole board, until say 26. This is for non adult crimes. For adult crimes, same thing but held longer.

Rehabilitation doesn't work well. 80% of people arrested for violent crime will be arrested for another crime within 9 years. The reality is that there are some people that are just bad apples and they cannot be helped. Until we have a better way to determine who is likely to be reformed and who cannot be helped, we should just lock all of them up and throw away the key. What is an acceptable level or risk for the general public that a released violent offender commits another violent crime in their lifetime 1%, 10%, 50%? The lifetime recidivism rate for violent criminals is very high. We need to prioritize protecting the rights and safety of the general public over violent criminals.

It's because wraparound services are inadequate. I have a nonprofit that desperately needs government funding to fix this problem. Please send money.

Ok assuming that "wrap around service funding is inadequate" what is an acceptable risk level of recidivism to the general public? What is the evidence that these policies will be effective at reducing crime and how much will this cost?

How much is a human life worth to you?

Well, why are you valuing the life of the offender/criminal over their victims? Because it’s not a matter of how much is a human life worth to you, but rather how much do you value the life of the criminal and are you willing to invest in their redemption to no limit, regardless of the human and financial cost of pursuing that redemption?

Children who never had a chance don't deserve to be punished just because they were mistreated for so long that they became adults.

Build support for children first, then lock up criminals.

Sometimes it is best to just throw away the whole apple barrel and start anew. Tweens and teens that have already committed armed robbery/carjacking are in that barrel.

Lock them away, make sure they don't reproduce and focus on the next batch of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to go after the gun company that made the gun and sold it to a 14 year old without a background check.

It was a ghost gun. Did you miss that part in the article? Privately manufactured firearms is the politically correct term for ghost guns.

Since the kid was the manufacturer, the PP is correct, they need to go after them since the kid made the gun. Easy peasy.

Those kids didn't know it was wrong to manufacturer guns. Who would have told them they needed a license?

[Anonymous]

I think juvenile judges try not to put kids in facilities when possible. They’re more likely to send a kid who committed a lesser crime to a juvenile facility if they have an unsafe situation at home or absent parents or parents who want nothing to do with them than they are to send a kid who committed an armed robbery to one if they think the child’s parents can ably or somewhat ably handle the situation.To me, that says the judge thinks the facility does little to help anyone and is a last ditch resort. I don’t think that has anything to do with decisions at trial though. This is just about pre trial choices. But I agree that we need a better pre trial solution for Kidd that’s not going home and not going to a non rehabilitative jail like situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to go after the gun company that made the gun and sold it to a 14 year old without a background check.

It was a ghost gun. Did you miss that part in the article? Privately manufactured firearms is the politically correct term for ghost guns.

Since the kid was the manufacturer, the PP is correct, they need to go after them since the kid made the gun. Easy peasy.

Those kids didn't know it was wrong to manufacturer guns. Who would have told them they needed a license?

I work in education and hear that excuse regularly: “the kids didn’t know that’s wrong.” Oh, they know. I’ve had students laugh at me, saying they know rules (and therefore laws) don’t matter. We taught them that.

We do a great disservice to young people when we hold them to such low expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to go after the gun company that made the gun and sold it to a 14 year old without a background check.

It was a ghost gun. Did you miss that part in the article? Privately manufactured firearms is the politically correct term for ghost guns.

Since the kid was the manufacturer, the PP is correct, they need to go after them since the kid made the gun. Easy peasy.

Those kids didn't know it was wrong to manufacturer guns. Who would have told them they needed a license?

Really, you believe what you just typed. These kids need to be in jail for a very long time.

[Anonymous]

Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

Youth = ***26***and under? Surely this is an April fools joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

Youth = ***26***and under? Surely this is an April fools joke.

It is a fact and is codified into the D.C. criminal code.

Are you new to D.C. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

Youth = ***26***and under? Surely this is an April fools joke.

And “so-called crimes”! You know, like armed robbery.

I agree. The PP is going the April Fool’s route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

When I was 26, I was a college graduate. I was married (to a college graduate) with two children and owned a home. To think my parents could still have “custody” of me at that time is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

When I was 26, I was a college graduate. I was married (to a college graduate) with two children and owned a home. To think my parents could still have “custody” of me at that time is absurd.

Same. And I was definitely not a dependent of my parents. I was paying my own taxes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youth, who are 26 and under, SHOULD be released to their parents when they are charged by the police for so-called crimes.

When I was 26, I was a college graduate. I was married (to a college graduate) with two children and owned a home. To think my parents could still have “custody” of me at that time is absurd.

The problem who want to infantilize 26-year-old men are sick in the head. Don't mind them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the victim was unable to take the perps down. Of course then the poor victim in fear for their life would have had the book thrown at them. Modern American justice.

No, no. Progressive justice. Leave the rest of us normies out of it.

You “normies” consistently enable Progressive Justice by voting “D” like a bunch of lemmings.