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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i don't recall ever having voted for a candidate who said "I will be soft on crime" or giving anyone a mandate for that - maybe that's something that should be part of a questionnaire asked of every candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i don't recall ever having voted for a candidate who said "I will be soft on crime" or giving anyone a mandate for that - maybe that's something that should be part of a questionnaire asked of every candidate.

If you vote for a progressive that's what you're voting for. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i don't recall ever having voted for a candidate who said "I will be soft on crime" or giving anyone a mandate for that - maybe that's something that should be part of a questionnaire asked of every candidate.

If you are MoCo and you voted for Mink or Jawando, they made it extremely clear before the last election that they are against law enforcement. It’s a really easy jump to “soft on crime”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i don't recall ever having voted for a candidate who said "I will be soft on crime" or giving anyone a mandate for that - maybe that's something that should be part of a questionnaire asked of every candidate.

If you are MoCo and you voted for Mink or Jawando, they made it extremely clear before the last election that they are against law enforcement. It’s a really easy jump to “soft on crime”.

Law enforcement is not the courts… and you misunderstood what they said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i don't recall ever having voted for a candidate who said "I will be soft on crime" or giving anyone a mandate for that - maybe that's something that should be part of a questionnaire asked of every candidate.

If you are MoCo and you voted for Mink or Jawando, they made it extremely clear before the last election that they are against law enforcement. It’s a really easy jump to “soft on crime”.

Law enforcement is not the courts… and you misunderstood what they said.

I took the PP’s statement that political candidates should fill out a questionnaire regarding being “soft on crime” to mean it should be clearer whether candidates are, indeed, soft on crime.

Mink and Jawando shouted that from rooftops prior to the last election. Police, proposed bills, etc. It was extremely clear to anybody looking.

[Anonymous]

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?

This question is somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much a human life if worth to me. It is more of a question of how much DC can afford to spend on wraparound services and how effective they are at preventing future crime. The reality of it is that there are only a finite amount of resources in the world and DC cannot spend every last dollar on a singular issue. This is no different than how the government needs to limit healthcare spending and refuse to pay for some incredibly costly treatments to maximize overall wellbeing. Eg. the government cannot afford to spend 10 million dollars to cure one persons cancer because this exorbitant spending will end up crowding out other expenses. Saving one life at the cost of $10 million is an objectively bad decision and this will harm society by reducing investment in other places where more could have benefited more from spending this money. Spending for government services always comes down to priorities because we do not live in a "perfect world" where human life can saved without concern for the costs.