Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP DC property values.. say hello to the 90s all over again.

So.much.progress.

Funny, in the 90's we had the current criminal code.

And the reduction of crime occurred under the current code as well.

So maybe that has nothing to do with crime? What other variables are there, hmm. The economy? Opportunities? Less lead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP DC property values.. say hello to the 90s all over again.

So.much.progress.

Funny, in the 90's we had the current criminal code.

And the reduction of crime occurred under the current code as well.

Anonymous wrote:RIP DC property values.. say hello to the 90s all over again.

So.much.progress.

Funny, in the 90's we had the current criminal code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

This is kind of silly. Do we have to read the entire tax code to have an opinion on taxes too?

No, but you know your tax rate and a few other actual facts. Can you state accurately one thing this bill does?

The bill reduced penalties for several violent criminal offenses, including offenses with guns. That is a fact what this bill does. Don’t need to read the whole thing to tell you that.

RIP DC property values.. say hello to the 90s all over again.

So.much.progress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

That’s by design. Have advocates draft a 300 page bill, bury 100 land mines in hopes not all of them will be found, “fix” those that few that are discovered, and get the vast, vast majority of what you want.

Do you know who drafted the bill? Hint: it wasn't "advocates"

Yes, USAO was represented. But the other voting members were Racine’s designee, the public defender rep, and the authors of “The Moral Economy of Incarceration, “Chokehold: Policing Black Men.” No, no advocates there.

Don’t be modest, you won.

The city council is run by ideologues who are not going to let evidence or facts or annoying things like what voters want to get in the way of what they want to do...Silverman was a good start, but we need to throw out a bunch of these other clowns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

That’s by design. Have advocates draft a 300 page bill, bury 100 land mines in hopes not all of them will be found, “fix” those that few that are discovered, and get the vast, vast majority of what you want.

+1

While telling voters they're just making "technical" fixes...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser has to veto. They cannot lower penalties for gun crimes while gun crimes are rising. Cheh and Pinto are absolutely correct about this.

There is no deterrent effect, these laws are outdated. Council is right about this one- plenty to squabble about but not this.

Nonsense. People in prison are 100% deterred from roaming the streets to victimize others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

That’s by design. Have advocates draft a 300 page bill, bury 100 land mines in hopes not all of them will be found, “fix” those that few that are discovered, and get the vast, vast majority of what you want.

Do you know who drafted the bill? Hint: it wasn't "advocates"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

This is kind of silly. Do we have to read the entire tax code to have an opinion on taxes too?

No, but you know your tax rate and a few other actual facts. Can you state accurately one thing this bill does?

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

That’s by design. Have advocates draft a 300 page bill, bury 100 land mines in hopes not all of them will be found, “fix” those that few that are discovered, and get the vast, vast majority of what you want.

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

This is kind of silly. Do we have to read the entire tax code to have an opinion on taxes too?

Anonymous wrote:This is not a decriminalization bill I really wish people would read

Not officially but that's the effect of it. It allows people to demand jury trials for everything. That sounds good in theory but the reality is that every criminal would be crazy not to demand a trial for everything knowing the courts will be swamped and won't get to their case for years. That gives enormous leverage to criminals because prosecutors will have a huge incentive to plea everything down, if people are even charged in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:How many PPs have read the bill? The commentary? Any of the documents produced by the Commission? Any of the hearings on the bill?

Clearly they've only heard about it on talk radio.