Let’s talk election results. I guess we’re even MORE progressive now in the face of rising crime.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I worked for DOJ for over a decade and have NEVER heard anyone call the DC USAO the "federal district attorney's office." |
Anonymous
Dude, you need to chill. I don't call it the federal da either. I only called it that in response to the idiot talking about the "new da" being soft on crime. I know what the hell the USAO is. I've been practicing law here for twice as long as you and no doubt have been three times more successful. |
Anonymous
| God lawyers suck. |
Anonymous
Except when you actually called it the federal district attorney’s office in a previous post? 
|
Anonymous
Oops. Your dumb is showing. |
Anonymous
I would be opposed to measures like this. It seems like it would increase crime rather than reduce it if there's no consequence for mugging, stealing from mom and pop stores, etc. |
Anonymous
| Can we run a home-grown Independent in Ward 1 in November? Why do we need to be tied up by the 2-party system? |
Anonymous
Listen. Listen to me. I don’t give a flying fk about the minutea of prosecutions in dc. Forest for the trees. Point is that we have a liberal da who is replacing a liberal da and we now have a more liberal city council who loooove these progressive criminal justice reform policies that obviously exacerbate crime. It’s this entire “we just need to keep looking and searching and desperately finding the “root cause” of crime to stop it . If we keep making it easier to commit crimes by not prosecuting things like shoplifting or teens who car jack, we will somehow ensure they go on to grow up out of prison and productive future citizens whose lives weren’t destroyed by jail. Really that’s the progressive approach we’re seeing and is what the city doubled down on with these recent elections. Less police. More restorative justice that doesn’t dissuade anything. It’s like we’re trying to hard to rewrite history. Trying to keep pounding on a nail that just won’t get drilled correctly with these novel soft on crime approaches. Through history the best deterrence to rising crime and misbehavior is swift and strong justice. I’m sorry, but we’re going in the wrong direction. Now we get to see more crime happen because everyone is too scared to offend anyone and take violent criminals off the street whoever they may be. |
Anonymous
+1000000 |
Anonymous
To/dr; being woke on crime is cool until you get punched in the face for your iPhone. Then you kind of realize maybe prison is a better place for some people. |
Anonymous
|
I am very responsive to some of the arguments made on this thread about the ways that Racine's approach to crime, and the general progressive insistence on "addressing root causes" instead of prosecuting, have contributed to an increase in crime rates, especially among juveniles. I'm in -- I agree that what we have been doing is NOT working.
But (and I get how naive this makes me sound -- I am naive! that's why I'm asking here) I just watched We Own This City and I also found the argument in that show that the war on drugs and the criminal justice system is essentially designed to lock up young black men, destroying black families and communities in the process. You can't ignore that history and how it got us to the point we are in now. So I find myself at a loss. How do we reject the "school to prison pipeline" that relies on aggressive prosecution of juvenile crime in order to effectively lock poor black men into extremely limited options before they even hit 18, while also actually addressing crime and recidivism in the city so that it's a safer and better place to live for all citizens, including black men and women and children? I agree that "violence interruptors" are not the answer (lol Charles Allen, please) but I also don't think locking up all these kids is the answer either. I was on another thread talking about how I think school closures had a real negative impact, and following that logic, I think increased programming and engagement for kids in the city starting from a young age is part of the solution. I recently heard about a program in I think Philadelphia where local high schools started staying open until midnight and providing a place for kids to come play, study, hang out, etc. with the caveat that of course drugs, alcohol, and weapons were not allowed and screened for. And it offered a real benefit -- a place for kids who don't always have safe homes or neighborhoods to go every day, where they could spend time with friends and just be kids, but where drugs and guns could be kept out. I'm sure it wasn't perfect but it was something. That doesn't mean I don't think these crimes should be prosecuted. They should. But there's got to be an option between locking up a generation of young black men and simply not prosecuting them at all. There do need to be consequences for actions, but also those consequences can't simply be effectively ending these kids' chances of ever being a functional, contributing member of society, by getting them in the system early and destroying future chances of regular employment and a functional relationship with their community. |
Anonymous
Go ahead and blow your money. The race is over. |
Anonymous
| Not my money. That’s the beauty of it. Maybe DFER has some? |
Anonymous
What kills me is all these councilpeople endorsing policies that they would NEVER apply with their own children. When your 7 year old shoplifts the candy bar, you march them back to the store, apologize to the manager and then make them do some sort of restitution. You don't just give them a free pass so that they can commit additional and escalating anti-social behavior. But that's what the council wants to do. We should be forcing non-violent juvenile offenders into street cleaning, litter pickup and other tasks that improve the community. And the one Robert White proposal I did find interesting was the idea of boarding schools. Violent juvenile offenders need to (a) be removed from the community to protect everybody else (b) sent somewhere where they get 24/7 supervision and are essentially re-parented into better social behavior by adults who are both strict AND nurturing---with clear goals and requirements for re-entry. |
Anonymous
Part of it is treating crime differently depending on the level of violence involved, whether a firearm was involved, and whether the person is a repeat offender. Absolutely, non traditional alternatives to prosecution can and should be utilized for non violent offenses committed by kids that aren’t repeatedly being arrested. However, when you are carjacking someone at gunpoint, or beating someone senseless for having the audacity to ask you stop playing basketball on THEIR property, school to prison pipeline be dammed, you need to be removed from society for a minute so that you aren’t a threat to other people. Unfortunately people like Karl Racine look only at the offender, not the potential harm that person can inflict on society if left in it. He sees a 15 year old no matter the crime and says your brain isn’t fully formed, back home with you! How is that helping anyone, because what you’re telling that kid with the less than fully formed brain is that he can do as he pleases with impunity, and you are allowing that kid to move on to victimize someone else. For some of these kids, home is also an environment that isn’t equipped to provide the support needed, so great you are sending him home to near certain failure, but hey you kept him with his family! |