Will DC eve go back to being somewhat tough on crime?

[Anonymous]

Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also, ask yourself. Does dc have a history of implementing good policy? How is WMATA run?

DC isn't WMATA, idiot. WMATA is four jurisdictions: VA, MD, DC and the federal gov't

Crack a book sometime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s comical that with rising crime the city is going to reform the criminal justice code so it’s more lenient.

The criminal code reform is not about making it more lenient. It is about modernizing it. The DC criminal code has not undergone a comprehensive revision in about a century, which is way out of step with what other jurisdictions have done. The recommendations that formed the foundation for the current bill were formed over the course of 4 years by a diverse group of participants. They are not winging it to be soft on crime. If you are interested in learning more, I'd suggest you check out: https://ccrc.dc.gov/page/frequently-asked-questions-8

All I can discern from your post is equity platitudes and euphemisms for being soft on crime.

That’s great it’s a diverse group that’s working on it. I mean it that.

But at the same time all the “modernization” will do is result in either abolishing what’s considered a crime altogether to help the statistics, things like quality of life crimes, or the modernization will allow shorter periods of incarceration which lets violent criminals back on the streets sooner, or really it will just be a bunch of novel things implemented with the input of sociologists and folks who take a “holistic look at crime with more of a focus on eradicating poverty and ensuring criminals get the Rehabiliation they need to function” and blah blah…

I live in this town. I see what the council is doing. Whether it’s 9m for violence interruptors in the face of violent crime increase. All the studies show they have no efficacy. Or if it’s Charles Allen and his raising the age for the youth rehab act to 26 to shield criminals records. Or allowing people with thousands of dollars to speeding tickets to keep their licenses because tickets “are oppression” or let fare evasion through or not trying to even stop the atv riders or just simply an antonistic approach to the police budget or basically how the court system works and how teens get a slap on the wrist and they know it…I’m pretty liberal, but on crime? Get the fk out of here. I was here in the 90s. I have seen people stabbed. Why do you want to coddle these people with your weak on crime nonsense? If anyone, anyone commits a violent act they should be in jail.

I guess what I mean is the progressives think their orthodoxy will somehow make public safety better, but thousands of years of evolution have shown us that really people will get away with what they think they can get away with. All your empathy and kindness for violent criminals does not improve the situation.

Also, ask yourself. Does dc have a history of implementing good policy? How is WMATA run? How efficient is DCRA? They had people there selling meth. What do they do well? How is progressive criminal justice reform doing in other jurisdictions? How does San Francisco look to you now? They recalled their liberal da. Why? Was it because progressive criminal justice reform actually makes the public less safe?

CA can recall prosecutors, in DC we can't even get stats from the federal USAO office, not now, not for as long as I have lived here. An ANC from the Hill has tried valiently but has been redistricted out for her troubles.

Yeah, it was Denise Krepp. Sadly she caught a bunch of heat for it on the local dc hill east Facebook group. As if trying to get stats is not allowed. There is is this really annoying vocal element of folks who decry tough on crime policy. As if anything that could lead to incarceration is bad. Or even calling the police is discouraged. It’s this kind of self flagellating virtue signaling where you “prove you’re down and a cool city dweller” by tolerating a certain amount of crime. It’s so fking stupid. Why buy a stupid $950,000+ row house if you don’t want the area to improve? It’s okay to call the cops if kids are lighting leaves on fire or throwing eggs and stuff at your house. I’m so tired of “altruistic to a fault” neighbors. It’s like that poor guy who was beaten up for telling kids to stop playing with his basketball hoop at 9pm because his kids needed to sleep. He was like “don’t blame the kids!”. I don’t care. I want the city to be better. I honestly want to support tax payers and people who don’t car jack or rob.

I doubt Krepp cares about what a few people say on facebook. Crime on the Hill is truly an issue where you have a strong silent majority. Doubt she would have any issues getting re-elected although I don’t know with redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

[Anonymous]

DC criminal convictions are harsh because there is no long-term prison in the district. Convicts go to the Bureau of Prisons, which can result in them serving their time anywhere in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC criminal convictions are harsh because there is no long-term prison in the district. Convicts go to the Bureau of Prisons, which can result in them serving their time anywhere in the U.S.

Or to private prisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

Any time someone's waving a gun around is dangerous. What I do get is that carjacking is more frightening to middle class voters, who see it as something that could possibly happen to them, whereas a stickup type robbery seems like it could only happen to the "wrong type" of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

Pretending you don’t see how one is inherently more dangerous for the victim and society than the other is bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

And I’m sure they are only doing it so that they can get to church or purchase desperately needed medical supplies. No chance they would operate said vehicle in disregard of decriminalized traffic laws, or in any high-speed, reckless, unsafe manor, and absolutely not as a means by which to commit yet another crime of violence for which a speedy getaway might be necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

Any time someone's waving a gun around is dangerous. What I do get is that carjacking is more frightening to middle class voters, who see it as something that could possibly happen to them, whereas a stickup type robbery seems like it could only happen to the "wrong type" of people.

that is completely nonsensical. you’re not doing your cause any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles Allen is rewriting the criminal code including penalties for carjackings. They will now just be "armed robberies" which will be a lesser sentence.

Serious question: if you hold someone up at gunpoint, why does it matter whether you're stealing their car or their wallet?

of course it does. is this a serious question? 1, carjacking is MUCH more dangerous. 2, a car is worth much more than the content of your wallet.

I don't buy the "much more dangerous." Someone pointing a gun in your face is dangerous whether you're standing or sitting.

Yeah, in a non-violent crime the dollar amount is important. When it comes to violent crime the thing being stolen is beside the point.

Do you honestly not understand why it’s inherently more dangerous for someone to invade your car, push you out of it, and drive off wildly? maybe with your baby or dog still inside, or you hanging out of the door? come on.

And I’m sure they are only doing it so that they can get to church or purchase desperately needed medical supplies. No chance they would operate said vehicle in disregard of decriminalized traffic laws, or in any high-speed, reckless, unsafe manor, and absolutely not as a means by which to commit yet another crime of violence for which a speedy getaway might be necessary.

True. It’s just kids who want to have some good clean fun, a joy ride.