We've had 392 carjackings so far this year. So, of course, Allen wants to radically reduce the maximum sentences for violent crimes such as carjacking. Makes sense. That will teach them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

Settle everything--both civil and criminal--short of crimes of violence.

Settle through ADR (alternative dispute resolution) for civil matters and plea deals / alternative sentences for non-violent criminal matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Exactly how are the penalties disappearing by allowing a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

Because if you don’t fund it, there is no prosecution, and no penalty.

As designed.

Everyone charged with a felony can demand a jury trial, and almost all of them plead out. Why do people think this would be different with misdemeanors? (I'm not being sarcastic, actually wondering if there is some reason to think it would be different)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Exactly how are the penalties disappearing by allowing a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

Should shoplifting be prosecuted by the government ?

Shouldn't protection of goods for sale be the responsibility of the store owner ?

Reality is that police forces nationwide are dealing with serious manpower shortages.

Shouldn't we let the police focus on crimes of violence ?

Everything has a cost. If society wants the police & the court system to be involved in all types of petty, non-violent offenses, then be prepared to pay more in taxes.

Easy to complain, but difficult to create an affordable solution to government involvement in all of the petty offenses currently legislated as crimes.

Buyer beware should be a standard for many, non-violent petty matters now classified as crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

Where is the funding for more prosecutors, judges, and PDS attys?

m
This city finds money for what the hell they want fund. Shame on you for wanting to divest citizens of their constitutional rights. Par for the course, I guess. Both Maryland and Virginia allows a defendant a trial by jury if they desire. In Maryland the punishment has to be for more than 90-days. In Virginia, it on appeal after a de nova hearing by a judge where there is no recorded record.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

Where is the funding for more prosecutors, judges, and PDS attys?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

More likely it will encourage criminals to do whatever they like since they know the penalties are effectively disappearing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime is so bad right now and people are begging begging the city government to do something about it, and here's Charles Allen coming along with a proposal to basically decriminalize everything short of murder. It's exactly the opposite of what people want. Our government is so out of touch.

Crime is the same I. This city as it was eight years ago. The difference is that now the new police chief is not suppressing the numbers. Lanier and Newsham’s early years, an attempted robbery and assault was reported as a misdemeanor battery, etc. they downgraded crimes to make their stats look better. The only numbers they could not fudge were those deemed a homicide by the coroner. MPD officers, both blue and white shirts, testified how they were encouraged to downgrade crimes and the stats.

There were 226 homicides last year. Ten years ago, there were 88.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.

That’s not how criminal court works. Criminal court will not get backed up because criminals have a right to a speedy trial. Civil courts will get backed up because judges have to handle criminal trials first. Maybe this will encourage civil complainants and respondents to engage more fairly in the ADR arena and resolve their issues.

Anonymous wrote:Crime is so bad right now and people are begging begging the city government to do something about it, and here's Charles Allen coming along with a proposal to basically decriminalize everything short of murder. It's exactly the opposite of what people want. Our government is so out of touch.

Crime is the same I. This city as it was eight years ago. The difference is that now the new police chief is not suppressing the numbers. Lanier and Newsham’s early years, an attempted robbery and assault was reported as a misdemeanor battery, etc. they downgraded crimes to make their stats look better. The only numbers they could not fudge were those deemed a homicide by the coroner. MPD officers, both blue and white shirts, testified how they were encouraged to downgrade crimes and the stats.

This should be required reading for the Council.

https://www.centerstreet.com/titles/rafael-a-mangual/criminal-injustice/9781546001515/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can we do at this point? (Besides vote against Charles Allen but I was already going to that)

Pretty much nothing. Current DC political leadership, and anyone that might foreseeably be elected here anytime soon, believes as a matter of policy that it is better to tolerate a higher crime rate in order to reduce incarceration and avoid damaging the life prospects of offenders to the extent possible. They aren’t pro-crime or anti-public order per se, but those are less important considerations. Crime victims are regrettable collateral damage.

This is the view of the far left -- that every kid who beats up an old woman on the bus is one hug away from becoming a brain surgeon. We don't have to elect far left extremists. In fact, one of them, Elissa Silverman, is fighting for reelection right now. Get rid of her and send a message to the council.

So you are saying you can’t trust a jury to convict if the evidence is presented? Interesting

You, Allen and everyone else knows that if this goes through, virtually nothing will be prosecuted.

Every single criminal will realize they would be crazy not to demand a jury trial because the courts will be backed up for years if not decades.

The result will be pretty much all charges for everything short of murder will be dropped, which is exactly what Allen wants. Because, you know, people who bludgeon old ladies on the bus are *this* close to going to medical school, if only they weren't prosecuted for their crimes.