Anonymous
07/15/2020 18:41
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Uhh what?
Not the PP, but in what way is that the least bit controversial?
That speeding cars are much more of a risk.
I was thinking we pay workers a living wage, have a more robust housing program that allows people to escape poverty, better drug treatment programs and have better access to pre-professional programs or college.
The only area where I will concede is that in some neighborhoods being a drug dealer is seen as "cool". Drug dealing hurts poor, black neighborhoods the most whether through incarceration, over reactive policing and gang violence. If there are ways to make drug dealing "uncool" that would help many of these neighborhoods.
A living wage will probably have the opposite effect on these communities. Sorry, but it's just not worth "a living wage" for a McDonald's cashier. This is why, as minimum wage laws have become more generous, you see more and more automation to the point the person taking the order is now a touch LCD screen. Increasing the wage further will only increase unemployment in this population - most of whom don't have the ability or motivation to work a job of any sort anyway. COVID is accelerating this behavior - I just read that meat processing plants are now replacing the butchering employees with machines as much as they can. Soon, the uneducated or those below average intelligence will not have a job of any type, let alone one that pays a "living wage"
Anonymous
07/15/2020 18:34
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Uhh what?
Not the PP, but in what way is that the least bit controversial?
That speeding cars are much more of a risk.
I was thinking we pay workers a living wage, have a more robust housing program that allows people to escape poverty, better drug treatment programs and have better access to pre-professional programs or college.
The only area where I will concede is that in some neighborhoods being a drug dealer is seen as "cool". Drug dealing hurts poor, black neighborhoods the most whether through incarceration, over reactive policing and gang violence. If there are ways to make drug dealing "uncool" that would help many of these neighborhoods.
Anonymous
07/14/2020 15:10
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Uhh what?
Not the PP, but in what way is that the least bit controversial?
That speeding cars are much more of a risk.
Anonymous
07/14/2020 15:09
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Uhh what?
Not the PP, but in what way is that the least bit controversial?
In the manner of reality.
Anonymous
07/14/2020 12:24
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Uhh what?
Not the PP, but in what way is that the least bit controversial?
Anonymous
07/14/2020 12:22
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
So don’t possess marijuana. Done. Not that hard.
Anonymous
07/14/2020 07:41
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
+1. And if they bothered to finish school, obtain employment and get married before becoming fathers in the first place, a person is far less likely to be involved with drugs at all
Anonymous
07/13/2020 22:09
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Let me guess, you also think premarital sex should be illegal?
Recreational marijuana use is no more problematic than recreational drinking. Ripping apart families over that is unreasonable.
Anonymous
07/13/2020 19:09
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's very sad that she took her son into this violent neighborhood. Bad parenting. It's one thing for you to believe something but to force your kids into dangerous situations is terrible. It's like parents who decide they have a "vegan toddler" and then the kids gets sick because babies can survive on vegetables. Young children were not meant to be at a BBQ in the most violent neighborhoods!
Well this is hardly the point of this thread but a toddler can easily be a vegan. What would make a toddler sick from being a vegan?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/vegan-baby-malnourished-diet-australia-nsw-unvaccinated-bone-disease-rickets-a9074081.html
Anonymous
07/13/2020 19:07
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:It's very sad that she took her son into this violent neighborhood. Bad parenting. It's one thing for you to believe something but to force your kids into dangerous situations is terrible. It's like parents who decide they have a "vegan toddler" and then the kids gets sick because babies can survive on vegetables. Young children were not meant to be at a BBQ in the most violent neighborhoods!
Well this is hardly the point of this thread but a toddler can easily be a vegan. What would make a toddler sick from being a vegan?
Anonymous
07/13/2020 18:58
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Uhh what?
Anonymous
07/13/2020 18:23
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
A father should not be possessing marijuana. What is wrong with you?
Anonymous
07/13/2020 15:37
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Yes very sad for the 11 year old boy and his mother.
However it does not negate the fact that the programs are largely useless, and based on a naive belief in social engineering.
We need more aggressive policing and a return of the vice squads to break up drug gangs and neighborhood crews. Since political correctness prevents this, get used to a return to Baltimore-levels of violence in DC.
That isn't what has happened in DC. We lost the best although controversial Chief. She yes she made those streets better now we are back to the same garbage we had before. And this is Trumps fault as well. This has zero to do with political correctness.
Anonymous
07/13/2020 15:34
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
You also need intact two-parent, intact married families with fathers in the homes raising their kids. But no one is willing to discuss that, either.
You do realize that "tough on crime" approaches tend to keep fathers out of the home, imprisoned over trivial stuff like possession of marijuana.
Anonymous
07/13/2020 15:33
Subject: Violence interrupter tragedy
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Damn I was gonna shoot the guys selling drugs on my turf, but now that my violence has been interrupted, I've decided to return to college and finish my masters' degree". - said nobody ever
Improving economic conditions does lead people to better paths.
Do you personally benefit from the prison-industrial complex?
Please articulate what system of prosecution and punishment/reform you would like to see in place and what you are willing to sacrifice for it (both financially, and as a theoretical victim of crime) to have the equitable , just and forward thinking criminal justice system you seek. Bullet points and examples are fine.
So you don't believe in programs to divert? You think that the current crime rate is just what we have to live with? Please provide evidence.
Not the PP, but no, I don't believe in programs to divert. A 16-year old that's willing to kill someone for a crew is a lost cause, and was probably a lost cause by age 10. You can turn around a few lives through aggressive intervention, job training, violence interrupters, etc, but for the most part all you're doing is delaying the inevitable recidivism. The funny thing is that we *know* how to reduce crime. We did it successfully during the 1990's and 2000's. You need aggressive policing in crime-prone neighborhoods, including rigorous but fair enforcement of quality of life crimes, including drug distribution. You also need vice units that will seek intelligence on crews that leads to actionable evidence (eg. raids that uncover drugs, weapons, etc). Longer sentences to keep offenders off the streets past the age of 35, and fewer chances offered to violent juvenile offenders.
All of this is precisely the opposite of the current "defund the police" movement, and we'll just have to wait for crime rates to spike into late-1980's territory for the inevitable "reconsideration" of priorities.
No 10 year old is a lost cause. What is wrong with you? Have you never met people who started off life on the wrong track but ended up living a good life?
There were also very negative effects of a "tough on crime approach" that have had and continue to have racist effects in perpetuating poverty.