Please stop with this School to Prison Pipeline talk!
This is nothing but a catchy phrase that distracts from truly helping our communities.

I'm an African American male who just retired from MCP (30+ years), so I have a front row perspective that most don't.

MoCo's juvenile justice system has more diversion programs and second/third chance scenarios than any county in our entire region.
Only the most serious violent felony cases even make it to court, much less detention.

First and Foremost, we have parenting issue that has deep cultural roots.

Our number one townhall topic should be how do we encourage FATHERS to be a part of families, before our boys enter puberty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we need to do in the face of violent crime is obviously to keep throwing money at programs , wringing our hands about actually arresting or prosecuting violent criminal perpetrators, but to continue focusing on learning “the root causes of crime”, which somehow we haven’t been able to do over the last 2,000 years or so. Since we’re in a time of defunding the police, and unwillingness to arrest because it breaks up families and all the rest, I’m sure we’ll come up with a strong deterrent soon and all will right itself.

We have never thrown money at the root of the problem, so stop that bs now.

Kids with learning disabilities who are not supported at school make a significant percentage of the people going to prison. The federal govt and the states have never funded special education as was promised when IDEA was created. The solution isn't more $ for policing.

It’s not an either/or. Police can prevent crime just by being present. They don’t have to arrest to do it. Read the City that Became Safe. Read Bleeding Out.

You need BOTH police presence and wraparound social supports to effectively prevent violent crime. Neither one works very well alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not see what is wrong with our current approach.

We need to stop the wholesale incarceration of young black men, in order to break the school-to-prison pipeline.

or we could incarcerate violent felons

We can also work on creating conditions where there are fewer violent felons.

Any ideas? The cities with the most progressive ideas seem to have made no headway

The most progressive cities still half-ass their programs. Take Muriel Bowser in DC. Her "progressive" ideas look nice at the surface but don't fundamentally change anything.

I also think it needs commitment over decades, not a six month or one year trial then declaring it a failure.

Kids are harmed in so many ways by poverty. This is a long game that we need to play, no silver bullets.

Could you please cite a progressive city that has implemented progressive criminal reform policies that have shown to have a statically significant impact on violent crime? Could you also cross verify those results with the crime reduction seen in cities like New York when they implemented tough on crime policing, broken windows policy and stop and frisk? Or also when DC cracked down in the late 80’s and 90’s? I’d like to learn which type of response works better at actually lowering crime. The tough variety or the restorative justice, no bail, $1,000 or higher for it to be a felony limit for shoplifting, and other lenient approaches. I’m sure you know the answer and are embarrassed to admit that tough policing is better for the actual community affected, maybe not for the children of those incarcerated or their families, but to victims of violent crime I’m sure it’s reassuring that their attackers are actually away from them and the general populace for a while.

More bs. The whole broken windows thing was a farce and allowed statistics to be manipulated. Look at Baltimore when governor whats his name had every poc spend at least a weekend in jail for no reason and what that did for crime. The cooking of the books is legendary.

Anonymous wrote:What we need to do in the face of violent crime is obviously to keep throwing money at programs , wringing our hands about actually arresting or prosecuting violent criminal perpetrators, but to continue focusing on learning “the root causes of crime”, which somehow we haven’t been able to do over the last 2,000 years or so. Since we’re in a time of defunding the police, and unwillingness to arrest because it breaks up families and all the rest, I’m sure we’ll come up with a strong deterrent soon and all will right itself.

We have never thrown money at the root of the problem, so stop that bs now.

Kids with learning disabilities who are not supported at school make a significant percentage of the people going to prison. The federal govt and the states have never funded special education as was promised when IDEA was created. The solution isn't more $ for policing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not see what is wrong with our current approach.

We need to stop the wholesale incarceration of young black men, in order to break the school-to-prison pipeline.

or we could incarcerate violent felons

We can also work on creating conditions where there are fewer violent felons.

Any ideas? The cities with the most progressive ideas seem to have made no headway

The most progressive cities still half-ass their programs. Take Muriel Bowser in DC. Her "progressive" ideas look nice at the surface but don't fundamentally change anything.

I also think it needs commitment over decades, not a six month or one year trial then declaring it a failure.

Kids are harmed in so many ways by poverty. This is a long game that we need to play, no silver bullets.

Could you please cite a progressive city that has implemented progressive criminal reform policies that have shown to have a statically significant impact on violent crime? Could you also cross verify those results with the crime reduction seen in cities like New York when they implemented tough on crime policing, broken windows policy and stop and frisk? Or also when DC cracked down in the late 80’s and 90’s? I’d like to learn which type of response works better at actually lowering crime. The tough variety or the restorative justice, no bail, $1,000 or higher for it to be a felony limit for shoplifting, and other lenient approaches. I’m sure you know the answer and are embarrassed to admit that tough policing is better for the actual community affected, maybe not for the children of those incarcerated or their families, but to victims of violent crime I’m sure it’s reassuring that their attackers are actually away from them and the general populace for a while.

Less crime is not a progressive goal. They run on arresting less POC and achieve those goals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not see what is wrong with our current approach.

We need to stop the wholesale incarceration of young black men, in order to break the school-to-prison pipeline.

or we could incarcerate violent felons

We can also work on creating conditions where there are fewer violent felons.

Any ideas? The cities with the most progressive ideas seem to have made no headway

The most progressive cities still half-ass their programs. Take Muriel Bowser in DC. Her "progressive" ideas look nice at the surface but don't fundamentally change anything.

I also think it needs commitment over decades, not a six month or one year trial then declaring it a failure.

Kids are harmed in so many ways by poverty. This is a long game that we need to play, no silver bullets.

Could you please cite a progressive city that has implemented progressive criminal reform policies that have shown to have a statically significant impact on violent crime? Could you also cross verify those results with the crime reduction seen in cities like New York when they implemented tough on crime policing, broken windows policy and stop and frisk? Or also when DC cracked down in the late 80’s and 90’s? I’d like to learn which type of response works better at actually lowering crime. The tough variety or the restorative justice, no bail, $1,000 or higher for it to be a felony limit for shoplifting, and other lenient approaches. I’m sure you know the answer and are embarrassed to admit that tough policing is better for the actual community affected, maybe not for the children of those incarcerated or their families, but to victims of violent crime I’m sure it’s reassuring that their attackers are actually away from them and the general populace for a while.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not see what is wrong with our current approach.

We need to stop the wholesale incarceration of young black men, in order to break the school-to-prison pipeline.

or we could incarcerate violent felons

We can also work on creating conditions where there are fewer violent felons.

I’m sorry, but how many centuries have shown that is a pipe dream? Can you stay grounded? What helped reduce crime in the 90’s in DC? Any ideas?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What we need to do in the face of violent crime is obviously to keep throwing money at programs , wringing our hands about actually arresting or prosecuting violent criminal perpetrators, but to continue focusing on learning “the root causes of crime”, which somehow we haven’t been able to do over the last 2,000 years or so. Since we’re in a time of defunding the police, and unwillingness to arrest because it breaks up families and all the rest, I’m sure we’ll come up with a strong deterrent soon and all will right itself.

When you say "keep throwing money at programs" are you talking about police?

Maybe you aren't familiar with the root causes of crime, but that doesn't mean that it isn't already understood. Like poverty. It's not rocket science. That is a problem we're doing to ourselves, and overemphasis on policing makes that worse.

Look, I live in Sourheast DC. There are shootings and robberies all the time. I’m sorry if people who commit those crimes are arrested and go to jail, but if that makes the community safer so be it. Charles Allen and the rest of the city council, who are pushing less severe penalties for teens who commit car jackings, and allowing people up to 26 to be covered under the Youth Rehab act, or get lenient sentences, even for repeat offenses, or these council members who push violence interruptors and pay millions of tax payer money for those even when they show no efficacy, or who push restorative justice over strict punishment, all these new novel approaches to harm reduction seem to just encourage more crime with impunity. They are not a crime prevention deterrent. Yes, arrests rates are disproportionate and it sucks. At the same time what are we supposed to do? Not punish anyone? If you get shot by someone, would you want to sit down and have restorative justice with your attacker? I wouldn’t. If someone lights your car on fire, would you want to have a violence interruptor speak harshly to them? Crime rates are rising. The pandemic is to blame I guess. But so are weak on crime, less tough policing. Just arrest and convict the people who commit violent crime. Put them away. Do you even live in the city? Do you have any clue what it’s like to get mugged? Or to be ever vigilant when you walk from a metro because the city now wants to lower the statistical imbalance in arrest rates? You can’t just excuse crime away or allow it to happen.

The city is already super lenient. Those two girls who killed that Uber driver will be out in a few years. All they cared about was getting their stupid phones back from the crime scene after they caused it. It’s really messed up. I’m really tired of people like you who excuse crime and want weak responses so families don’t lose their dads to jail. What about them victims?