Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

Have you been a victim of a violent crime?

See the reply at the top of this page. Cops rarely ever stop violent crime. Exacting state-sanctioned vengeance against perpetrators of violent crime doesn't make the rest of us safer. The notion that it does is a fantasy dreamed up by conservatives, to help them sleep at night and satisfy them that the "bad people" are being punished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

In Arlington the structures are in place, the amount of charity that is available to people in need is tremendous. There are lots of programs for low income kids. But with all things, one has to actually avail themselves of the opportunities. No, there is no way to force someone to take advantage of a program or get involved. We are past the point of needing "to fix" anything other than crime. You keep believing that the next hand out will make the difference while ignoring the fact that people have free will and sometimes do bad things. Lots of people want free, fast, easy money. Even people with money. The police don't act of fear of people like you. But then again, as soon as you are the victim of even the smallest crime, there is no doubt that the first thing you will do is reach for the phone to call the policie.

Iun other words, you are like everyone else in Arligton. You are liberal and progressive UNTIL it effects you personally, and then, well that's a different story ....

"Law and order" conservatives really need to update their talking points. They've gotten pretty stale.

If you think that Arlington's programs are generous enough to eliminate poverty in the county, to say nothing about the DC area more broadly, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We have poverty right here in our backyard, along with all of the downstream problems it causes: hunger, homelessness, and yes, crime. Our social programs make a dent, but they don't come close to fully alleviating poverty, and they certainly don't eliminate the economic and social structures that produce it. Then there's the fact that, as many conservatives like to point out, there's poverty in DC too, leading some to cross the river to commit crimes of opportunity here.

You say that the only thing keeping me, a liberal snowflake, from becoming just as punitive and draconian as you is that I haven't been a victim of crime yet. Leave aside the fact that I have, in fact, been a victim of crime, multiple times. Let's say I get mugged while I'm walking home. What would be going through my head? Fear, panic, and a lot of other adrenaline-laden feelings, sure. And yeah, I would almost certainly call the police. Why? Not because the police could stop the crime. It had already happened, and they had failed to stop it. I'd call just to report it, in hopes that they could catch the perpetrator. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though, because even our relatively professionalized police force doesn't seem to be all that great at catching robbers. (Tellingly the ACPD annual reports tally the number of offenses against persons and property, but don't say what percentage of those cases resulted in arrests.) So where would that leave me? Right back to where I currently am, thinking that police don't do much to keep me safe.

Maybe I'd feel some animosity toward the perpetrator. After all, in our hypothetical, they threatened to harm me and stole my stuff. Of course I'd be angry at them. But I wouldn't want them to be summarily executed or anything. What I'd want is for them to acknowledge that what they did was wrong, give me my stuff back, and make a better life for themselves so that they don't hurt anyone else. Restorative justice models create the best chances of that happening. Certainly more so than the retributive "lock em up" model that conservatives cling so hard to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

What’s the evidence that this “addressing root cause” approach actual works, anywhere, ever?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

Have you been a victim of a violent crime?

See the reply at the top of this page. Cops rarely ever stop violent crime. Exacting state-sanctioned vengeance against perpetrators of violent crime doesn't make the rest of us safer. The notion that it does is a fantasy dreamed up by conservatives, to help them sleep at night and satisfy them that the "bad people" are being punished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

You really drank the Koop aid didn’t you? Of course we need to get to the root cause, but it’s never going to happen and crime will get worse. Eventually, they will rob someone with a gun and get shot. When the criminal see that the regular people are fighting back, it will lessen. Our CA is terrible, imo and is a direct cause of much of the increased crime. I do still feel safe, but I do not leave my purse or keys in my unlocked car. That’s just stupid. Crime of opportunity can happen everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

Have you been a victim of a violent crime?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

Have you been a victim of a violent crime?

Anonymous wrote:A few month’s ago, the CA said that crime was not an issue in Arlington because there were no murders. Since then two murders occurred and the CA will easily win a second term

I am amused by the Democrats turning on each other for the CA and Missing Middle housing. Both are ultra progressives wreaking vengeance on progressives.

It is fun to watch them eat their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

Anonymous wrote:A few month’s ago, the CA said that crime was not an issue in Arlington because there were no murders. Since then two murders occurred and the CA will easily win a second term

I am amused by the Democrats turning on each other for the CA and Missing Middle housing. Both are ultra progressives wreaking vengeance on progressives.

It is fun to watch them eat their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

In Arlington the structures are in place, the amount of charity that is available to people in need is tremendous. There are lots of programs for low income kids. But with all things, one has to actually avail themselves of the opportunities. No, there is no way to force someone to take advantage of a program or get involved. We are past the point of needing "to fix" anything other than crime. You keep believing that the next hand out will make the difference while ignoring the fact that people have free will and sometimes do bad things. Lots of people want free, fast, easy money. Even people with money. The police don't act of fear of people like you. But then again, as soon as you are the victim of even the smallest crime, there is no doubt that the first thing you will do is reach for the phone to call the policie.

Iun other words, you are like everyone else in Arligton. You are liberal and progressive UNTIL it effects you personally, and then, well that's a different story ....

"Law and order" conservatives really need to update their talking points. They've gotten pretty stale.

If you think that Arlington's programs are generous enough to eliminate poverty in the county, to say nothing about the DC area more broadly, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We have poverty right here in our backyard, along with all of the downstream problems it causes: hunger, homelessness, and yes, crime. Our social programs make a dent, but they don't come close to fully alleviating poverty, and they certainly don't eliminate the economic and social structures that produce it. Then there's the fact that, as many conservatives like to point out, there's poverty in DC too, leading some to cross the river to commit crimes of opportunity here.

You say that the only thing keeping me, a liberal snowflake, from becoming just as punitive and draconian as you is that I haven't been a victim of crime yet. Leave aside the fact that I have, in fact, been a victim of crime, multiple times. Let's say I get mugged while I'm walking home. What would be going through my head? Fear, panic, and a lot of other adrenaline-laden feelings, sure. And yeah, I would almost certainly call the police. Why? Not because the police could stop the crime. It had already happened, and they had failed to stop it. I'd call just to report it, in hopes that they could catch the perpetrator. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though, because even our relatively professionalized police force doesn't seem to be all that great at catching robbers. (Tellingly the ACPD annual reports tally the number of offenses against persons and property, but don't say what percentage of those cases resulted in arrests.) So where would that leave me? Right back to where I currently am, thinking that police don't do much to keep me safe.

Maybe I'd feel some animosity toward the perpetrator. After all, in our hypothetical, they threatened to harm me and stole my stuff. Of course I'd be angry at them. But I wouldn't want them to be summarily executed or anything. What I'd want is for them to acknowledge that what they did was wrong, give me my stuff back, and make a better life for themselves so that they don't hurt anyone else. Restorative justice models create the best chances of that happening. Certainly more so than the retributive "lock em up" model that conservatives cling so hard to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal policies on policing and prosecution cause this.

Go back to actually arresting people and putting them in jail.

Stop voting for progressives!

I will gladly keep voting for progressives because, unlike law-and-order reactionaries, I appreciate that the best way to increase public safety is to address the conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place, that harsher punishments don't actually deter crime, that people who make terrible mistakes (especially when they're young) should have a support structure that enables them to thrive in society, and that more policing resources need to be directed toward increasing clearance rates and solving unsolved crimes.

We know that the "tough on crime" approach doesn't work. It makes us no safer but inflicts a ton of misery. Its real goal is to use the power of the state to assuage conservatives' sensitive feelings. They want to feel like "cops are catching the bad guys" even when they're not, and like "the bad guys are getting punished" even when very few are irredeemably evil and the carceral system makes them even more prone to committing crimes.

In Arlington the structures are in place, the amount of charity that is available to people in need is tremendous. There are lots of programs for low income kids. But with all things, one has to actually avail themselves of the opportunities. No, there is no way to force someone to take advantage of a program or get involved. We are past the point of needing "to fix" anything other than crime. You keep believing that the next hand out will make the difference while ignoring the fact that people have free will and sometimes do bad things. Lots of people want free, fast, easy money. Even people with money. The police don't act of fear of people like you. But then again, as soon as you are the victim of even the smallest crime, there is no doubt that the first thing you will do is reach for the phone to call the policie.

Iun other words, you are like everyone else in Arligton. You are liberal and progressive UNTIL it effects you personally, and then, well that's a different story ....

"Law and order" conservatives really need to update their talking points. They've gotten pretty stale.

If you think that Arlington's programs are generous enough to eliminate poverty in the county, to say nothing about the DC area more broadly, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We have poverty right here in our backyard, along with all of the downstream problems it causes: hunger, homelessness, and yes, crime. Our social programs make a dent, but they don't come close to fully alleviating poverty, and they certainly don't eliminate the economic and social structures that produce it. Then there's the fact that, as many conservatives like to point out, there's poverty in DC too, leading some to cross the river to commit crimes of opportunity here.

You say that the only thing keeping me, a liberal snowflake, from becoming just as punitive and draconian as you is that I haven't been a victim of crime yet. Leave aside the fact that I have, in fact, been a victim of crime, multiple times. Let's say I get mugged while I'm walking home. What would be going through my head? Fear, panic, and a lot of other adrenaline-laden feelings, sure. And yeah, I would almost certainly call the police. Why? Not because the police could stop the crime. It had already happened, and they had failed to stop it. I'd call just to report it, in hopes that they could catch the perpetrator. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though, because even our relatively professionalized police force doesn't seem to be all that great at catching robbers. (Tellingly the ACPD annual reports tally the number of offenses against persons and property, but don't say what percentage of those cases resulted in arrests.) So where would that leave me? Right back to where I currently am, thinking that police don't do much to keep me safe.

Maybe I'd feel some animosity toward the perpetrator. After all, in our hypothetical, they threatened to harm me and stole my stuff. Of course I'd be angry at them. But I wouldn't want them to be summarily executed or anything. What I'd want is for them to acknowledge that what they did was wrong, give me my stuff back, and make a better life for themselves so that they don't hurt anyone else. Restorative justice models create the best chances of that happening. Certainly more so than the retributive "lock em up" model that conservatives cling so hard to.