Reply to Cognitive Dissonance

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Cognitive Dissonance"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

If, as you say, the bill actually lengthens jail terms (which in your eyes doesn't work), then shouldn't you be against it?[/quote]

No, I accept that if you hold out for perfection, you end up with nothing. Because the Mayor and a few others decided perfection was necessary, we are all getting nothing.
[/quote]

So this mess is all Bowser's fault now? The same Bowser that has been banned from the House floor or whatever cockamamie resolution the mouth-breather Republican chuds passed?

Now they're doing Bowser a favor? You're gonna have to show your work there.

The fact remains that the Council could have passed a bill that was 90-95 percent supported and simply not simply added every DC Justice Lab demand, which is *exactly* what happened (and anyone who shakes their fist at DFER for its shady funding should be extremely curious/furious about the DCJL's funding). Instead, we're back to square one because Charles Allen and his supporters on the Council forget every single rule about politics and now look like complete rubes. [/quote]

Democrats, including Biden, have been using Bowser's veto to justify the motion for disapproval. Here is Biden's statement (with bolding added):

[quote]"I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward [b]over the Mayor’s objections[/b] – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,[/quote]

Because, as you say, Bowser was not happy with 5% less than perfection, we get nothing.

Moreover, Bowser was one of the leading voices in spreading a misleading understanding of the bill. 
[/quote]

The notion that the feds are doing Bowser's bidding is comically misinformed. Bad policy and inept politics got us here.[/quote]

The inept politics is entirely on Bowser's part. The Republicans are acting like Republicans. You can't expect more from them than that. But the Democrats believe they were given a green light by Bowser. Biden's own justification is that Bowser objected to the legislation
.
[/quote]

Considering she got the outcome she wanted,  I would not be calling Bowser's politics "inept." It's hilarious that you clearly think Allen did a good job here. He's a dismal failure.[/quote]

Bowser opposed the bill but when Congress stepped in, she pivoted to "Congress needs to mind its own business and this is why DC needs home rule."  Weird position to be in.

Some posters have insinuated that the bill proposed some changes that would help prosecutors go after violent criminals and gun crimes, but haven't provided details.  Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.  The people defending the bill have completely failed at giving a detailed, reasoned response.  Meanwhile they are getting their lunch eaten over the glaring omission of mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders, along with the possibility that the courts may be overwhelmed with jury trials for misdemeanors.

Why not just take another crack at it and fix those obvious flaws?[/quote]

This is probably the best objective review of the criminal code revision. Read it and see what you think then:

https://dcist.com/story/23/01/27/does-dc-criminal-code-overhaul-reduce-penalties-violent-offenses

[/quote]

Interesting article - but it exposes a whole host of problems in our system.

They cite a carjacking study by the Sentencing Commission - https://scdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/scdc/release_content/attachments/Carjacking_Fast_Facts.pdf
That report says 97% of carjacking counts received a prison sentence.

Meanwhile the MPD dashboard shows there were 660 carjackings during the Sentencing Commission's study period.  https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/carjacking

97% received sentences.  But that's of the 34 carjackers who actually got to the point of being prosecuted for sentencing.  What about the other 630 carjackings that happened?

And, it's only gotten worse since December 2020.  How will the bill improve the number of prosecutions leading to sentencing?

And what about transparency?  There is very little transparency from AUSA, have heard that they don't respond to FOIA requests on prosecution stats.  Council should address transparency with their crime bill, given the huge disconnect between DC crime stats and sentencing stats which reveals that apparently only a small fraction of crimes and arrests result in anything.

And, allowing for a "racial discrimination" rationale for dropping mandatory minimums for minor offenses and first offenders, but it does not excuse away violent offenses and repeat offenses.  Allowing violence and repeat offenses plays into the soft racism of low expectations.  I still think we need mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders - and the low side of national average on minimums per the article is 5 years.  Council should put mandatory minimum language in for violent and repeat offenders.[/quote]

My back of the envelope calcs show that out of all DC carjackings, MPD is showing around 21% as "cleared" which is unclear to me what it means - does it mean there was an arrest, or does it mean "hey we found the car, call it a day?"  And, it shows 5% resulting in convictions of some sort.

TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics