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.

The idea that a 9 or 10 year old is “hardened” is both anti human and anti-science. The human brain is highly plastic up through your 20s and these kids can learn and grow despite trauma. Give them an environment that is positive and hopeful and see what they can do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You've clearly never spent time around kids in juvie. It's more a vicious cycle. They get into the system and then end up going back over and over again, until they graduate to adult prison.

“End up” If only they had some agency!

I would like to be paid not to murder. You can also pay me not to rape, steal or drive too fast. I should also be paid for paying to ride the bus.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, actual consequences would be a good start. Youth that are inflicting violence on the community first and foremost need to be removed from society, community safety should not take a back seat to some violent kid. And, there should be consequences, like if they carjack someone and wreck the car, who pays the damage? Shouldn't be "oh just let insurance take care of it" and pretend it's victimless.

As for rehabilitating them and returning them to society that is also important, but an entirely separate issue from the first one of making our communities safer by removing violent individuals from society. Don't leap to the second issue without dealing with the first one of community safety.

Anonymous wrote:So exactly how would this work? Would it be paid out on a pro rata basis, say $500 per non murder. A criminal would go into a DC administrative office and say give me $1,500 because I was tempted to kill three people this week but didn’t.

I suspect DC would pay based on the length of your rap sheet. I can't see how this could go wrong.

So exactly how would this work? Would it be paid out on a pro rata basis, say $500 per non murder. A criminal would go into a DC administrative office and say give me $1,500 because I was tempted to kill three people this week but didn’t.

Anonymous wrote: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.

You've clearly never spent time around kids in juvie. It's more a vicious cycle. They get into the system and then end up going back over and over again, until they graduate to adult prison.

Anonymous wrote:

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/

That isn't stated anywhere in this article.

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

Yes. Yes they did. Inform yourself pp.

This sounds like an idea Janeese would love. She'd pay them a fortune to pinky promise not to murder anyone.

Bribery only works for evil, not for good.

Anonymous wrote:A practical approach would be to pay indigent women to be sterilized. Too many are unprepared, unwilling, and incapable of parenting children responsibly. Their spawn end up feral, behaving accordingly.

This is crazy, but if you really believe this it's puzzling you picked women (who carry a kid for 9 months) over men.

A practical approach would be to pay indigent women to be sterilized. Too many are unprepared, unwilling, and incapable of parenting children responsibly. Their spawn end up feral, behaving accordingly.

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

College financial aid already exists, obviously.

This population isn't ready for college. They need basic life skills and high school education first, which is what the proposals propose.

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Given the efficiency of the proposed money distribution program, how efficient are these programs? How many highly skilled administrators does it take to organize a rec program?