Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the money would be well-spent to provide supervised recreational activities, job training, and meaningful job opportunities— all of which come with mentoring.

I swear when people write/say things like this, they've never been to the other side of DC. These kids are hardened by the time they're 9 or 10 years old. They are not sitting around playing board games at the rec center.

That's why elementary and middle school rec programs are important, and effective. Previous cuts have been correlated with crime spikes.
https://wamu.org/story/11/05/31/dc_kids_prep_for_a_summer_with_far_fewer_city_programs/

Anonymous wrote:The debate seems split just 2 ways in the other thread: more National Guard/ cops on the street to slow crime, versus the usual ways D.C. addresses crimes.

But what about a 3rd way?

Haven’t other cities had success by just paying young men (and it’s always men) to not murder?

Since we're parsing the details here, perhaps we could be a bit more specific.

I find your title super offensive.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the money would be well-spent to provide supervised recreational activities, job training, and meaningful job opportunities— all of which come with mentoring.

I swear when people write/say things like this, they've never been to the other side of DC. These kids are hardened by the time they're 9 or 10 years old. They are not sitting around playing board games at the rec center.

Actually, the money would be well-spent to provide supervised recreational activities, job training, and meaningful job opportunities— all of which come with mentoring.

How about paying.....for college or other ways to get out of poverty?

Anonymous wrote:What happened to the 2016 proposal?

https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-financial-incentive-richmond.html


"paying people not to crime" is a way of saying "UBI for law-abiding citizens". SGTM.

Pay women too.

Amazing.

The bill doesn't specify how much participants could earn, but the program would cost an average of $1.2 million a year for the first four years, including $460,000 for stipends.

That's $1.14 million in administrative overhead.

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.

Apparently California started it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/cities-have-begun-to-challenge-a-bedrock-of-american-justice-theyre-paying-criminals-not-to-kill/2016/03/26/f25a6b9c-e9fc-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

What happened to the 2016 proposal?

https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-financial-incentive-richmond.html


"paying people not to crime" is a way of saying "UBI for law-abiding citizens". SGTM.

Pay women too.

Why should we inhibit their cultural expression?

Anonymous wrote:What? No. No city has just paid people not to commit murder.

Violence interrupters.

Why not pay the NG to kill the murderers? That’s what the military does best.

What? No. No city has just paid people not to commit murder.

The debate seems split just 2 ways in the other thread: more National Guard/ cops on the street to slow crime, versus the usual ways D.C. addresses crimes.

But what about a 3rd way?

Haven’t other cities had success by just paying young men (and it’s always men) to not murder?