Anonymous wrote:Ok -- for all of you insisting that 25 year olds are "juveniles" -- I guess we just send people in their 20s to juvie for a few years when they do a car jacking?

There are better restorative programs for our youth aged 25 and younger who cannot fully comprehend the results of their actions and that don’t ruin their lives.

OP, you are so funny. The city doesn't care if they carjack, why would they care if they were out late? What are they going to do to them if they are? Nothing!!! Just like if they carjack.

Anonymous wrote:Ok -- for all of you insisting that 25 year olds are "juveniles" -- I guess we just send people in their 20s to juvie for a few years when they do a car jacking?

DC's youth rehabilitation act allows anyone 25 or younger to have their sentences minimized and record expunged for things like hate crimes, car jacking, assault with a deadly weapon, gun crimes.

Anonymous wrote:I love Democrat and progressive logic - we need to be lenient on people for crime until the age of 25 because they do no yet have fully matured brains and often have poor judgement abilities as a result.

On the other hand, Dems and progressives think teenagers and tweens are perfectly mature enough to make correct decisions regarding their sexuality and think kids as young as pre-teens should have access to gender affirming medicine that can often have severe and irreversible health consequences.


Sorry Democrats, you can’t have it both ways. If 12 year olds are mature enough to make decisions regarding gender affirming care like you claim then 18-22 year olds are sure as hell mature enough to make decisions about crime and should have the book thrown at them. You can’t have it both ways. If 22 year olds aren’t mature enough and should have leniency when they commit crime, then 12 year olds sure as S shouldn’t have access to irreversible health decisions like gender affirming care.

So much hypocrisy.

+1

I love Democrat and progressive logic - we need to be lenient on people for crime until the age of 25 because they do no yet have fully matured brains and often have poor judgement abilities as a result.

On the other hand, Dems and progressives think teenagers and tweens are perfectly mature enough to make correct decisions regarding their sexuality and think kids as young as pre-teens should have access to gender affirming medicine that can often have severe and irreversible health consequences.


Sorry Democrats, you can’t have it both ways. If 12 year olds are mature enough to make decisions regarding gender affirming care like you claim then 18-22 year olds are sure as hell mature enough to make decisions about crime and should have the book thrown at them. You can’t have it both ways. If 22 year olds aren’t mature enough and should have leniency when they commit crime, then 12 year olds sure as S shouldn’t have access to irreversible health decisions like gender affirming care.

So much hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only answer is to make thug culture not seem cool and desirable for teens. Good luck.

This is another elephant in the room people don't want to tackle. I grew up listening to hip hop, but we have to acknowledge a good portion of it is toxic and not fit for public consumption.

Hip hop as a form is valid and good but the topics and lyrics and worldview matter and we can't just dismiss all of the negative role models in the name of "telling it like it is" and pretending like it doesn't glorify violence and greed. I know this personally since I almost went down that path myself as an ignorant young male who grew up in DC.

Anonymous wrote:The only answer is to make thug culture not seem cool and desirable for teens. Good luck.

This is another elephant in the room people don't want to tackle. I grew up listening to hip hop, but we have to acknowledge a good portion of it is toxic and not fit for public consumption.

The only answer is to make thug culture not seem cool and desirable for teens. Good luck.

Ok -- for all of you insisting that 25 year olds are "juveniles" -- I guess we just send people in their 20s to juvie for a few years when they do a car jacking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DC define a child as 25 and under? If so that should be the curfew age limit, not 19.

As for your second point, more green space would very much help. Much of the unused commercial real estate definitely should be torn down to create the parks. I would love it!

Uh, what? I moved here after law school for a job -- at 25. Should I have been arrested on my way home after a late night at the office?

Your brain isn't full developed. Please leave the discussion to adults.

What? PP here. I'm 53 now. My goodness, the people on this forum don't have two wits to rub together and reading comprehension is at a pathetic low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DC define a child as 25 and under? If so that should be the curfew age limit, not 19.

As for your second point, more green space would very much help. Much of the unused commercial real estate definitely should be torn down to create the parks. I would love it!

Uh, what? I moved here after law school for a job -- at 25. Should I have been arrested on my way home after a late night at the office?

Your brain wasn’t full developed yet, so you were incapable of being responsible for your actions.

Well, the bar where I'm licensed surely would have felt differently had I really messed something up.

I get that we should try to help people who can't walk the right path but what about rest of the people.

Living in fear of getting mugged, robbed, assaulted, raped, stabbed or shot or dealing with trauma after becoming a victim is bad for mental and physical health. Shouldn't there be a class action suit against people who are responsible for safety of tax payers?

Anonymous wrote:Violent criminals need to be removed and isolated from society. Doesn’t matter whether they’re 12 years old or 65. They need to go.

Start a public awareness campaign. Put the word out everywhere. After “____” date, if you get caught committing a violent crime, you’re gone. And you’re not coming back, for years. Maybe decades”.


Sure it’s unconstitutional. Sure it’s cruel and unusual.

It’ll work.


Because after you’ve removed a few thousand people, everyone else will get the message. And between people who’ve already been removed, and those discouraged by the new penalties, crime WILL drop precipitously. Guaranteed.

This is obviously extreme but making examples out of repeat offenders is needed for sure. Criminals need to fear consequences of their actions.

Anonymous wrote:Would it help to have a night curfew for people under 19?

Would more green space help where free concerts, sporting events, motivational speakers, career counselors, positively engage youth?

I'm sure posters here can brainstorm for better solutions. Any ideas?

Teens across America are bored. Yes to all these things. But not having all of them now is not permission to be a criminal . They should be charged and locked away while you and your friends build this better place. As you build it, maybe fewer teens will commit these heinous crimes.

I am OK with a night curfew but at this point we need a day one too, and that's not fair to the good kids. I'd prefer random checkpoints and stop and frisk for anyone/all. Yeah, this is what living in a war zone looks like - military family

Curfews don't work.

What we really need is a two pronged program where (1) violent criminal behavior by young people is actually punished, so that very violent young people don't just get the encouragement of a slap on teh wrist and then being free to go rampage some more, AND (2) a major preventative and rehabilitation program for youth, which would involve more engagement with youth (after school programs, weekend activities that are supervised), education and deterrent programs that make it clear to kids why this behavior is wrong and ultimately only hurts themselves and their own community, and strong rehabilitation programs for youth offenders so that detaining them after offenses actually leads to better choices instead of just learning how to crime harder from the other kids in lock up, which is what currently happens to the limited number of kids who are actually placed in juvenile detention centers.

We bicker over whether we should do #1 or #2 and the answer is OBVIOUSLY both. I don't even understand why we have this fight all the time.