Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous]

Law abiding citizens’ safety should be prioritized over the near impossible task of stopping crime at the root with “services.” We need to address crime on both a short term and a longer term level. I’d also support UBI, but coupled with f around and find out enforcement of crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law abiding citizens’ safety should be prioritized over the near impossible task of stopping crime at the root with “services.” We need to address crime on both a short term and a longer term level. I’d also support UBI, but coupled with f around and find out enforcement of crime.

I don't get why all the violent insurrection people are getting short sentences. Let's start there with correcting leniency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law abiding citizens’ safety should be prioritized over the near impossible task of stopping crime at the root with “services.” We need to address crime on both a short term and a longer term level. I’d also support UBI, but coupled with f around and find out enforcement of crime.

I don't get why all the violent insurrection people are getting short sentences. Let's start there with correcting leniency.

Probably because they were prosecuted in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law abiding citizens’ safety should be prioritized over the near impossible task of stopping crime at the root with “services.” We need to address crime on both a short term and a longer term level. I’d also support UBI, but coupled with f around and find out enforcement of crime.

I don't get why all the violent insurrection people are getting short sentences. Let's start there with correcting leniency.

Actually many are getting locked up for years, unlike in DC where violent car jackers and rapists have had their records shielded, and are continually rereleased quickly back on the street to harm others, thanks to “progressive” criminal justice policies implemented by our council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law abiding citizens’ safety should be prioritized over the near impossible task of stopping crime at the root with “services.” We need to address crime on both a short term and a longer term level. I’d also support UBI, but coupled with f around and find out enforcement of crime.

I don't get why all the violent insurrection people are getting short sentences. Let's start there with correcting leniency.

Actually many are getting locked up for years, unlike in DC where violent car jackers and rapists have had their records shielded, and are continually rereleased quickly back on the street to harm others, thanks to “progressive” criminal justice policies implemented by our council.

Quite a few of them have lost their jobs and/or gotten locked up.

[Anonymous]

I'm a moderate who wants insurrectionists AND our local violent criminals off the street. I also want to move serious resources to support maternal and child health as well as K-12 education so our local criminals don't have to "go bad." But, once they've gone bad, I'm not interested in having them back. No one gets unlimited chances in life, and dangerous, antisocial choices should have consequences.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

[Anonymous]

2016 was heaven comparably speaking

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

Yeah dude. 90% of the bill was great and revised the 99 year old code.

But the 10%, the changes to car jacking and misdemeanor stuff. Surely you can imagine our already burdened court system, even with increased staffing proposed, would choose to let many charges go. Quality of life would decrease. Honestly, it’s pointless debating with you. We all know you’re incredibly progressive and you also have the power to delete posts at will, which you do all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am afraid that you are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance. The Members of the Council were popularly elected. Biden is not acting as the voice of the people, but as an unrepresentative autocrat overturning the will of the people. If Charles Allen is so unpopular, why didn't anyone even bother to run against him? To hear people like you tell it, that should have been the easiest seat to flip in the District.

There is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the the crime situation in DC. But, thinking that it hinges on a law that doesn't even take effect until two years from now is absurd. The current situation is occurring under the vary laws you folks are so eager to protect.

As a lifelong resident who has witnessed first hand so many episodes of crime in my neighborhood (and packages and bikes stolen) in over it. I’m over the second look act, I’m over the youth rehab act, I’m over Charles Allen laying blame at feet of city services for “not cleaning up the leaves in time” so kids wouldn’t light them on fire.I’m tired of violent teens knowing they will simply face no consequences for stealing cars. I’m tired of speeders never losing their licenses now because tickets are “oppression”. You make your progressives bonafides very clear in many posts. I actually agree with many of them, especially your views on gender and transgender rights etc. However, it’s clear the progressive justice reform, however hip it is, is tantamount to leniency with regard to violent crime. Violence interruptors that cost millions, but for which studies show no efficacy, or this push for restorative justice for someone physically abused is leading to a culture that encourages more violence.

I get that we are in this era of re-examining criminal justice, and there have been horrendous tales of police violence, but truly the council would have basically allowed for no criminal penalties with its push for jury trials for misdeamonrs. You think our overburdened court system can see all these cases? Even with increased staff? No, basically none of these crimes would be anything other than dismissed or not prosecuted.

We have a growing violence problem. We need to be tough on crime. I’m sorry if the arrest stats are bad. Just arrest and prosecute criminals. We won’t. We will have a council that will double down. And we will have progressive DA’s and a system that just continues to look the other way, not prosecute, but keeps yapping endlessly that we need to “study then root causes of crime” in perpetuity.

Are you aware of the downsides of "tough on crime" approaches? Are you ok with that?

Having seen both in action, in more inclined to the time tested “get the criminals off the streets” approach’. I don’t really want to have a two hour social justice convo about it. I already know where you stand based on your post. For example, you’re cool with things like raising the minimum for felony theft to $1,000, whereas I am not, because it causes a lot of theft to occur and places like CVS closing in my neighborhood she folks walk out the door with their arms full and no one bats an eye because there is no point. And then you argue “but the big corporations have insurance!!!” And yeah I’ll pass on that sort of discussion thanks.

How cute of you to make assumptions. I'll assume you're ok with having an exorbitant percentage of our citizens in jail and you enjoy that it'll be applied more harshly to black people.

Or we could not make assumptions. Your call.

See, like of course, that was completely your predictable response: “but you just want everyone in jail you racist!!!!”

and that’s why I have no desire to talk to people who throw out baseless accusations. Just lock up whoever commits crime. It’s not racist. It’s common sense.

*makes baseless accusations*
*gets upset when people make baseless accusations about them*

Lol

Your position on violent crime was transparently clear from the tone of your first post. I know your make.

“Too many people in jail, im super progressive, instead of a strict approach to punishment as a deterrence let’s lessen penalties while studying the roots causes of poverty in perpetuity, all while whining there isn’t enough money being poured into wrap around social services. It’s not people’s fault when they commit crime because of their underlying circumstances.”

Am I on the right track? Yes, see we just saved ourselves like 10’posts. Basically, you’re okay with the soft bigotry of low expectations and are okay with infantalizing people. Whereas I am a realist and am from the city.

Nope, not even close, but I don't think you're even listening.

That’s great. Care to explain your ethos on criminal justice?

Only to people who are actually listening. I've had great conversations with people that hold fairly different views. There actually a lot in common that I think could be actionable with a large majority.

But then there's people like you who enjoy getting on a soapbox to criticize. I've tried talking to people who say things like you and it's pointless. So, no thanks.

We’re listening. In a nutshell, beyond “we lock too many people up” what are your positions?

Economic improvement and hope for the future is a far more effective means to reduce crime than just punishment. Before the haters jump on it, I'm not saying no punishment ever.

I agree with your platitudes, but what happens now, in reality, when the rubber meets the road, and if I am punched in the face and get my iPhone stolen and then the repeat offender teen who did it is somehow arrested, and gets no punishment, is let off, and the assault isn’t even placed on their record, which is generally how it works now. Where is my hope for the future and my wish to continue living in dc and paying taxes here to help support its growth?

Why do you think that teen is doing that?

The racists (I'm not accusing you) don't care. Just lock them up. And keep locking them up until our problem is solved.

Alternatively: let's take care of your safety, which is important, while also addressing root causes. It's not easy and I don't expect it to be quick or perfect. But that's what I see as important to work on.

It's not racist to want violent repeat offenders removed from society (and ideally offered some form of rehabilitation) so that they can't continue to prey on law abiding citizens. The reason these teens are doing this is that they have not faced real consequences for their dangerous, anti-social behavior. In DC, given the demographics of the city and the disparate commission of crimes by one racial group, that happens to mean more black youth under the supervision of the criminal justice system. That's not racist to point out, indeed it is condescending and racist to argue that black people aren't capable of knowing right from wrong. Root causes are there, obviously, but many of them can't be solved by government intervention and spending, and even if they could, that should never replace maintaining a safe city for the vast number of DC residents who are law abiding.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

Yeah dude. 90% of the bill was great and revised the 99 year old code.

But the 10%, the changes to car jacking and misdemeanor stuff. Surely you can imagine our already burdened court system, even with increased staffing proposed, would choose to let many charges go. Quality of life would decrease. Honestly, it’s pointless debating with you. We all know you’re incredibly progressive and you also have the power to delete posts at will, which you do all the time.

As I said above, if the expansion of jury trials overburdens the court system, it can be halted at any time. The bill provides for an analysis of the impact of changes prior to each additional phase of the transition. Not every misdemeanor becomes eligible for a jury trial, btw. Even with full implementation of the bill, DC residents will have less right to a jury trial than residents of most states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I am afraid that you are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance. The Members of the Council were popularly elected. Biden is not acting as the voice of the people, but as an unrepresentative autocrat overturning the will of the people. If Charles Allen is so unpopular, why didn't anyone even bother to run against him? To hear people like you tell it, that should have been the easiest seat to flip in the District.

There is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the the crime situation in DC. But, thinking that it hinges on a law that doesn't even take effect until two years from now is absurd. The current situation is occurring under the vary laws you folks are so eager to protect.

As a lifelong resident who has witnessed first hand so many episodes of crime in my neighborhood (and packages and bikes stolen) in over it. I’m over the second look act, I’m over the youth rehab act, I’m over Charles Allen laying blame at feet of city services for “not cleaning up the leaves in time” so kids wouldn’t light them on fire.I’m tired of violent teens knowing they will simply face no consequences for stealing cars. I’m tired of speeders never losing their licenses now because tickets are “oppression”. You make your progressives bonafides very clear in many posts. I actually agree with many of them, especially your views on gender and transgender rights etc. However, it’s clear the progressive justice reform, however hip it is, is tantamount to leniency with regard to violent crime. Violence interruptors that cost millions, but for which studies show no efficacy, or this push for restorative justice for someone physically abused is leading to a culture that encourages more violence.

I get that we are in this era of re-examining criminal justice, and there have been horrendous tales of police violence, but truly the council would have basically allowed for no criminal penalties with its push for jury trials for misdeamonrs. You think our overburdened court system can see all these cases? Even with increased staff? No, basically none of these crimes would be anything other than dismissed or not prosecuted.

We have a growing violence problem. We need to be tough on crime. I’m sorry if the arrest stats are bad. Just arrest and prosecute criminals. We won’t. We will have a council that will double down. And we will have progressive DA’s and a system that just continues to look the other way, not prosecute, but keeps yapping endlessly that we need to “study then root causes of crime” in perpetuity.

Are you aware of the downsides of "tough on crime" approaches? Are you ok with that?

Having seen both in action, in more inclined to the time tested “get the criminals off the streets” approach’. I don’t really want to have a two hour social justice convo about it. I already know where you stand based on your post. For example, you’re cool with things like raising the minimum for felony theft to $1,000, whereas I am not, because it causes a lot of theft to occur and places like CVS closing in my neighborhood she folks walk out the door with their arms full and no one bats an eye because there is no point. And then you argue “but the big corporations have insurance!!!” And yeah I’ll pass on that sort of discussion thanks.

How cute of you to make assumptions. I'll assume you're ok with having an exorbitant percentage of our citizens in jail and you enjoy that it'll be applied more harshly to black people.

Or we could not make assumptions. Your call.

See, like of course, that was completely your predictable response: “but you just want everyone in jail you racist!!!!”

and that’s why I have no desire to talk to people who throw out baseless accusations. Just lock up whoever commits crime. It’s not racist. It’s common sense.

*makes baseless accusations*
*gets upset when people make baseless accusations about them*

Lol

Your position on violent crime was transparently clear from the tone of your first post. I know your make.

“Too many people in jail, im super progressive, instead of a strict approach to punishment as a deterrence let’s lessen penalties while studying the roots causes of poverty in perpetuity, all while whining there isn’t enough money being poured into wrap around social services. It’s not people’s fault when they commit crime because of their underlying circumstances.”

Am I on the right track? Yes, see we just saved ourselves like 10’posts. Basically, you’re okay with the soft bigotry of low expectations and are okay with infantalizing people. Whereas I am a realist and am from the city.

Nope, not even close, but I don't think you're even listening.

That’s great. Care to explain your ethos on criminal justice?

Only to people who are actually listening. I've had great conversations with people that hold fairly different views. There actually a lot in common that I think could be actionable with a large majority.

But then there's people like you who enjoy getting on a soapbox to criticize. I've tried talking to people who say things like you and it's pointless. So, no thanks.

We’re listening. In a nutshell, beyond “we lock too many people up” what are your positions?

Economic improvement and hope for the future is a far more effective means to reduce crime than just punishment. Before the haters jump on it, I'm not saying no punishment ever.

I agree with your platitudes, but what happens now, in reality, when the rubber meets the road, and if I am punched in the face and get my iPhone stolen and then the repeat offender teen who did it is somehow arrested, and gets no punishment, is let off, and the assault isn’t even placed on their record, which is generally how it works now. Where is my hope for the future and my wish to continue living in dc and paying taxes here to help support its growth?

Why do you think that teen is doing that?

The racists (I'm not accusing you) don't care. Just lock them up. And keep locking them up until our problem is solved.

Alternatively: let's take care of your safety, which is important, while also addressing root causes. It's not easy and I don't expect it to be quick or perfect. But that's what I see as important to work on.

It's not racist to want violent repeat offenders removed from society (and ideally offered some form of rehabilitation) so that they can't continue to prey on law abiding citizens. The reason these teens are doing this is that they have not faced real consequences for their dangerous, anti-social behavior. In DC, given the demographics of the city and the disparate commission of crimes by one racial group, that happens to mean more black youth under the supervision of the criminal justice system. That's not racist to point out, indeed it is condescending and racist to argue that black people aren't capable of knowing right from wrong. Root causes are there, obviously, but many of them can't be solved by government intervention and spending, and even if they could, that should never replace maintaining a safe city for the vast number of DC residents who are law abiding.

It's racist if it's applied the way the seemingly race neutral war on drugs was carried out. Higher penalties for crack vs cocaine because it was more prevalent in Black communities, higher arrest rates in Black neighborhoods, etc. It's how "tough on crime" has always been implemented in the USA. What are you doing to prevent that now?