Paying DC youth not to murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just juvie and prison? If we actually had punishments for committing underaged crimes (shoplifting! Car theft!), then they wouldn't graduate to murder.

You've clearly never spent time around kids in juvie. It's more a vicious cycle. They get into the system and then end up going back over and over again, until they graduate to adult prison.

“End up” If only they had some agency!

Have you ever seen what these kids' lives are like? They're often in foster care, they have absolutely no one watching out for them. In bad parts of town school discipline issues end up criminalized so kids are sent to juvie for things like fights in school. Then they have a record, making jobs or even the military harder. What life do you think these kids have.

This, of course, is a lie.

The reality is right now society writes off these children pretty much the second they are born. And you think it's surprising they are angry. We made them.

“We” didn’t make anything, unless you are referring to the bigotry of your pathetically low expectations.

Okay yeah, so you don't know anything. Google the school to prison pipeline.

I worked with these kids. Kids in the foster system are treated like absolute trash. By age 17, 50% of them have had an encounter with the criminal justice system. 20% of kids in the foster system end up homeless within 5 years of aging out.

If you think that's on the kids, something is wrong with you.

“had an encounter with the criminal justice system” do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Maybe their a**es could use an encounter with a swift kick.

It's a catch all term for arrests and incarceration but you're too lazy to Google.

The fact that you're fantasizing about physically harming foster children really isn't helping with the whole vibe of "psychopath who doesn't see foster kids as human".

Why not just say “had been arrested”? Is there some situation under which a person can be incarcerated without being arrested? You just don’t want to say “arrested” because it sounds bad.

DP.. arrested does not automatically mean the person did something bad. There's a percentage of false arrests, acquittals etc.

But that said I think there's a problem with a lack of consequences leading to increasingly worse behavior as children grow to adulthood.

[Anonymous]

There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach morals and values and right from wrong in the home.

Youth can join the National Guard at age 18 and get paid.

"Taught in the home" -> privilege

A lot of these kids are coming from generationally dysfunctional homes. And with a good percentage of them it's not even parents involved, they may be getting shuttled between aunts and grandmas or whoever else, because parents are dead/in jail/otherwise absent. A good friend of mine volunteers on a program for teens in DC, and he says "these kids have absolutely no clue what 'normal' is" - there's extreme dysfunction, complete lack of parenting, lack of teaching of morals and values, and so on. While it's "officially" about things like sports coaching and other types of activities, he tries to teach them morals and values, teaches them about how to make some money honestly and so on. They don't even have the basics.

Why is your way better? You are criticizing a culture.

Explain yourself. There are lots of families that escaped poverty and dysfunction. It's not a necessary part of "culture."

Why is your White European culture the ideal? Who decided that it should be the one that others aspire to?

So you're saying that violence, criminality and dysfunction are essential parts of non-western society and that White European culture should be rejected for not embracing it. Wow.

I am saying that this is the result of forcing Western colonialism on a culture that doesn't want it. We don't a moral superiority that allows us to reject other cultures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

Much of D.C.'s traffic enforcement is based on a desire for the generation of revenue, using automated mechanisms like speed enforcement cameras. Public safety is a secondary consideration, since traffic enforcement is heavily criticized when directed at individually identified offenders whose racial attributes make their offense presumptively based on race rather than on law-breaking.

[Anonymous]

I would be FAR more adept and effective at committing murder, in a far greater scale, than the average DC “youth”.

So where’s my $$$$ payment incentive not to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just juvie and prison? If we actually had punishments for committing underaged crimes (shoplifting! Car theft!), then they wouldn't graduate to murder.

You've clearly never spent time around kids in juvie. It's more a vicious cycle. They get into the system and then end up going back over and over again, until they graduate to adult prison.

“End up” If only they had some agency!

Have you ever seen what these kids' lives are like? They're often in foster care, they have absolutely no one watching out for them. In bad parts of town school discipline issues end up criminalized so kids are sent to juvie for things like fights in school. Then they have a record, making jobs or even the military harder. What life do you think these kids have.

This, of course, is a lie.

The reality is right now society writes off these children pretty much the second they are born. And you think it's surprising they are angry. We made them.

“We” didn’t make anything, unless you are referring to the bigotry of your pathetically low expectations.

Okay yeah, so you don't know anything. Google the school to prison pipeline.

I worked with these kids. Kids in the foster system are treated like absolute trash. By age 17, 50% of them have had an encounter with the criminal justice system. 20% of kids in the foster system end up homeless within 5 years of aging out.

If you think that's on the kids, something is wrong with you.

“had an encounter with the criminal justice system” do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

Maybe their a**es could use an encounter with a swift kick.

It's a catch all term for arrests and incarceration but you're too lazy to Google.

The fact that you're fantasizing about physically harming foster children really isn't helping with the whole vibe of "psychopath who doesn't see foster kids as human".

Why not just say “had been arrested”? Is there some situation under which a person can be incarcerated without being arrested? You just don’t want to say “arrested” because it sounds bad.

DP.. arrested does not automatically mean the person did something bad. There's a percentage of false arrests, acquittals etc.

But that said I think there's a problem with a lack of consequences leading to increasingly worse behavior as children grow to adulthood.

Sure, but what you're saying is "contacts with the criminal justice system" is a euphemism, which was precisely my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach morals and values and right from wrong in the home.

Youth can join the National Guard at age 18 and get paid.

"Taught in the home" -> privilege

A lot of these kids are coming from generationally dysfunctional homes. And with a good percentage of them it's not even parents involved, they may be getting shuttled between aunts and grandmas or whoever else, because parents are dead/in jail/otherwise absent. A good friend of mine volunteers on a program for teens in DC, and he says "these kids have absolutely no clue what 'normal' is" - there's extreme dysfunction, complete lack of parenting, lack of teaching of morals and values, and so on. While it's "officially" about things like sports coaching and other types of activities, he tries to teach them morals and values, teaches them about how to make some money honestly and so on. They don't even have the basics.

So break the cycle - no more kids for such people.

Nail meet hammer.


This is the correct answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

Sorry but being poor doesn't give you an excuse to speed, run red lights, or drive like a maniac, or to habitually break traffic laws. I can see giving a poor person a break or a discount on their first couple of tickets but not if they do it habitually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

Much of D.C.'s traffic enforcement is based on a desire for the generation of revenue, using automated mechanisms like speed enforcement cameras. Public safety is a secondary consideration, since traffic enforcement is heavily criticized when directed at individually identified offenders whose racial attributes make their offense presumptively based on race rather than on law-breaking.

You'd think the locals would be smart enough to know where the cameras are, and stop running red lights and blasting through speed cameras at 10+ mph over the speed limit. If you can't figure that out, it's on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A practical approach would be to pay indigent women to be sterilized. Too many are unprepared, unwilling, and incapable of parenting children responsibly. Their spawn end up feral, behaving accordingly.

Why such an extreme, inhumane approach?

We can’t even do the common sense basics. This country’s approach is to make access to abortion and birth control harder and harder. We know a lot of people should not have children and will not be able to raise productive members of society but our voters choose otherwise.

Birth control is easy to come by. Getting people who are ill-equipped and disinclined to be effective parents to use it is another thing altogether. That lack of self-control and discipline is reflected in their unrestrained reproduction without regard to capacity or desire to actually support and raise a family to be productive members of society instead of leeches. Efforts to positively influence uncivilized people who were raised to be uncivilized is way too late in the game.

Mirena or depo provera as a condition of aid would do the trick imho

Pretty sure this illegal as are all of the previous suggestions of sterilization of certain groups.

The government has run sterilization programs in the past. It was horrific then and still is.

Cutting off benefits at one kid and actually making them temporary is more likely to stop this. Playing the system for long term assistance is now handed down generationally. Girls know what they have to do to start their own flow of benefits.

Np I don’t think it’s sterilization to require birth control while on assistance. And maybe DC is mostly black poor, other areas have different races who are poor (nationally most poor are white), so it’s not targeting just blacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach morals and values and right from wrong in the home.

Youth can join the National Guard at age 18 and get paid.

"Taught in the home" -> privilege

A lot of these kids are coming from generationally dysfunctional homes. And with a good percentage of them it's not even parents involved, they may be getting shuttled between aunts and grandmas or whoever else, because parents are dead/in jail/otherwise absent. A good friend of mine volunteers on a program for teens in DC, and he says "these kids have absolutely no clue what 'normal' is" - there's extreme dysfunction, complete lack of parenting, lack of teaching of morals and values, and so on. While it's "officially" about things like sports coaching and other types of activities, he tries to teach them morals and values, teaches them about how to make some money honestly and so on. They don't even have the basics.

Why is your way better? You are criticizing a culture.

Explain yourself. There are lots of families that escaped poverty and dysfunction. It's not a necessary part of "culture."

Why is your White European culture the ideal? Who decided that it should be the one that others aspire to?

So you're saying that violence, criminality and dysfunction are essential parts of non-western society and that White European culture should be rejected for not embracing it. Wow.

I am saying that this is the result of forcing Western colonialism on a culture that doesn't want it. We don't a moral superiority that allows us to reject other cultures.

I'm not sure if you're trying to troll or if you're being earnest, but either way you're failing to make your case.

Blaming every instance of dysfunction on “Western colonialism” is a dodge. Colonialism ended long ago, and societies across the world, whether Western or non-Western alike face breakdowns when families collapse and when values aren’t passed on. Teaching honesty, responsibility, contributing to community through hard work and care for others isn’t “European superiority,” it’s a human universal. Pretending otherwise is again the fallacy of low expectations and denies communities their agency to build resilience and thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

Much of D.C.'s traffic enforcement is based on a desire for the generation of revenue, using automated mechanisms like speed enforcement cameras. Public safety is a secondary consideration, since traffic enforcement is heavily criticized when directed at individually identified offenders whose racial attributes make their offense presumptively based on race rather than on law-breaking.

You'd think the locals would be smart enough to know where the cameras are, and stop running red lights and blasting through speed cameras at 10+ mph over the speed limit. If you can't figure that out, it's on you.

Great! Can we have the same standard for violent crime? Also, as a factual matter, only slightly more than half of the 3 million traffic tickets the city issued each year are for speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

DC issues 3.3 million tickets each year. That's twice as many tickets as Chicago. Chicago is four times bigger than DC, both in area and population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a curious double standard on the left when it comes to traffic violations vs. violent crime. We throw the book at drivers. The city issues *millions* of tickets each year, many for minor violations. The attitude is that if you don't like it, then don't break the law. But with violent crime, people on the left are always looking for excuses not to punish the people involved. There's always some tortured reason why we can't enforce the law when it comes to violent crimes.

Not true. There’s a pretty substantial push not to enforce traffic laws of any kind for equity reasons.

DC issues 3.3 million tickets each year. That's twice as many tickets as Chicago. Chicago is four times bigger than DC, both in area and population.

I'm fine with that. And they shouldn't charge poor people less, they should charge rich people more.

People drive like maniacs here. Who cares if they get tickets?