I don’t think there should be a max over 20 years for any crime. If you are a serial murderer that’s a mental institution and can be for life or until no danger. So I’m very ok w reduced maximums.

I am horrified by the jury trials for misdemeanors when the legislators know these would never happen. That means legalizing all misdemeanors. Noise, fights, non-felony crimes and robberies, any number of antisocial behaviors. DC would be bedlam.

It’s a terrible legislation without serious corrections, that shows just how unserious and disinterested in the DC population’s well-being this council is — they’re in it for their own careers. End of story.

It’s a firm no.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

I don't think those numbers are acceptable. I also don't think that fixating on whether the minimum sentence is 4 or 7 years makes a lot of sense given how few perpetrators make it that far.

well then why does the code rewrite fixate on changing the maximum? answer: to reduce actual sentences. which yes, will result in more carjacking.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220621_Recidivsm-SentLength.pdf

The maximum in the revision is 24 years. Judges have rarely given that much so it is really immaterial. What do you think is the proper maximum?

I'm vaguely undecided on the code bill, not that it matters now, but the idea behind this bothers me. The proponents of the bill were always proclaiming that judges don't give maximum penalties now, so changing the maximum and minimums would have no effect. But that's very unclear to me. If you change the max and min, judges could easily change their sentencing, even if their old sentencing is within the new range. It's really a change in equilibrium, not a simple change.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

I don't think those numbers are acceptable. I also don't think that fixating on whether the minimum sentence is 4 or 7 years makes a lot of sense given how few perpetrators make it that far.

I think it does matter. Given how many criminal acts already do slip through the cracks, not having a mandatory minimum just makes for yet another crack for things to slip through.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

I don't think those numbers are acceptable. I also don't think that fixating on whether the minimum sentence is 4 or 7 years makes a lot of sense given how few perpetrators make it that far.

well then why does the code rewrite fixate on changing the maximum? answer: to reduce actual sentences. which yes, will result in more carjacking.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220621_Recidivsm-SentLength.pdf

The maximum in the revision is 24 years. Judges have rarely given that much so it is really immaterial. What do you think is the proper maximum?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

I don't think those numbers are acceptable. I also don't think that fixating on whether the minimum sentence is 4 or 7 years makes a lot of sense given how few perpetrators make it that far.

well then why does the code rewrite fixate on changing the maximum? answer: to reduce actual sentences. which yes, will result in more carjacking.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220621_Recidivsm-SentLength.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how folks can both support progressive criminal justice reformers like Charles Allen, but are mystified when crime goes up. Or how they can lament gentrification and vocally oppose it, but also live in a beautiful condo that costs $4,000 per month. It just seems like complete cognitive dissonance. Gentrification is literally the reason this city is better these days. It’s become more prosperous, with better restaurants. It’s safer, or it was until the push for criminal justice reform from the last few years which is clearly making us less safe. I mean our council pushed Biden into the corner with this bill. Had the council not removed the two move controversial parts (jury trials for misdeamors and messing with car jacking laws) it may have passed.

This is just a rant. I’m tired, as someone literally from the center of this city, that we have such progressive members. I’m pretty liberal, but there are so many examples of council leniency on crime, most probably from a push for equitable outcomes or whatever, that they just foster an environment of increased crime. I wish we had a strong ob crime and incarceration set of council members. Read the room. Chicago, NY and now DC. People want safety. Vote for your own safety. It’s nonsense.

Re: criminal justice reform:

George Floyd's murder took place when violent crime was relatively low. Protecting against it wasn't really on most people's radar, save for very low income communities of color. And honestly, they don't have a voice like many others do. And justice reform feels good and hypothetically makes sense. No reasonable person wants to unduly punish people. Most people want the punishment to fit the crime.

What progressive reformers got wrong, however, is that you can't upend the system without downstream effects, most of which will disproportionately impact those most vulnerable communities. So when you provide all the supports to the people committing crimes, you completely overlook the victims. And people take advantage of that. Add to it the huge influx of even more guns into our society, both from increased manufacturer, fear purchases, ghost guns, and the erosion of gun safety laws, and you have a deadly mix.

Guess who suffers the resulting increased violence? Lower income communities of color.

Good criminal justice reform would have been more measured, based on evidence, and would have worked really hard to avoid unintended consequences as much as possible.

It did not. It was governance by twitter. Whatever sounded catchy got the support. And here we are.


Extreme right wing politicians/activists do this too. We just happen to live in a very progressive region.

Bingo

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

I don't think those numbers are acceptable. I also don't think that fixating on whether the minimum sentence is 4 or 7 years makes a lot of sense given how few perpetrators make it that far.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

If, as you say, the bill actually lengthens jail terms (which in your eyes doesn't work), then shouldn't you be against it?

No, I accept that if you hold out for perfection, you end up with nothing. Because the Mayor and a few others decided perfection was necessary, we are all getting nothing.

So this mess is all Bowser's fault now? The same Bowser that has been banned from the House floor or whatever cockamamie resolution the mouth-breather Republican chuds passed?

Now they're doing Bowser a favor? You're gonna have to show your work there.

The fact remains that the Council could have passed a bill that was 90-95 percent supported and simply not simply added every DC Justice Lab demand, which is *exactly* what happened (and anyone who shakes their fist at DFER for its shady funding should be extremely curious/furious about the DCJL's funding). Instead, we're back to square one because Charles Allen and his supporters on the Council forget every single rule about politics and now look like complete rubes.

Democrats, including Biden, have been using Bowser's veto to justify the motion for disapproval. Here is Biden's statement (with bolding added):

"I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,

Because, as you say, Bowser was not happy with 5% less than perfection, we get nothing.

Moreover, Bowser was one of the leading voices in spreading a misleading understanding of the bill.

The notion that the feds are doing Bowser's bidding is comically misinformed. Bad policy and inept politics got us here.

The inept politics is entirely on Bowser's part. The Republicans are acting like Republicans. You can't expect more from them than that. But the Democrats believe they were given a green light by Bowser. Biden's own justification is that Bowser objected to the legislation
.

Considering she got the outcome she wanted, I would not be calling Bowser's politics "inept." It's hilarious that you clearly think Allen did a good job here. He's a dismal failure.

Bowser opposed the bill but when Congress stepped in, she pivoted to "Congress needs to mind its own business and this is why DC needs home rule." Weird position to be in.

Some posters have insinuated that the bill proposed some changes that would help prosecutors go after violent criminals and gun crimes, but haven't provided details. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. The people defending the bill have completely failed at giving a detailed, reasoned response. Meanwhile they are getting their lunch eaten over the glaring omission of mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders, along with the possibility that the courts may be overwhelmed with jury trials for misdemeanors.

Why not just take another crack at it and fix those obvious flaws?

This is probably the best objective review of the criminal code revision. Read it and see what you think then:

https://dcist.com/story/23/01/27/does-dc-criminal-code-overhaul-reduce-penalties-violent-offenses

Interesting article - but it exposes a whole host of problems in our system.

They cite a carjacking study by the Sentencing Commission - https://scdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/scdc/release_content/attachments/Carjacking_Fast_Facts.pdf
That report says 97% of carjacking counts received a prison sentence.

Meanwhile the MPD dashboard shows there were 660 carjackings during the Sentencing Commission's study period. https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/carjacking

97% received sentences. But that's of the 34 carjackers who actually got to the point of being prosecuted for sentencing. What about the other 630 carjackings that happened?

And, it's only gotten worse since December 2020. How will the bill improve the number of prosecutions leading to sentencing?

And what about transparency? There is very little transparency from AUSA, have heard that they don't respond to FOIA requests on prosecution stats. Council should address transparency with their crime bill, given the huge disconnect between DC crime stats and sentencing stats which reveals that apparently only a small fraction of crimes and arrests result in anything.

And, allowing for a "racial discrimination" rationale for dropping mandatory minimums for minor offenses and first offenders, but it does not excuse away violent offenses and repeat offenses. Allowing violence and repeat offenses plays into the soft racism of low expectations. I still think we need mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders - and the low side of national average on minimums per the article is 5 years. Council should put mandatory minimum language in for violent and repeat offenders.

My back of the envelope calcs show that out of all DC carjackings, MPD is showing around 21% as "cleared" which is unclear to me what it means - does it mean there was an arrest, or does it mean "hey we found the car, call it a day?" And, it shows 5% resulting in convictions of some sort.

TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how folks can both support progressive criminal justice reformers like Charles Allen, but are mystified when crime goes up. Or how they can lament gentrification and vocally oppose it, but also live in a beautiful condo that costs $4,000 per month. It just seems like complete cognitive dissonance. Gentrification is literally the reason this city is better these days. It’s become more prosperous, with better restaurants. It’s safer, or it was until the push for criminal justice reform from the last few years which is clearly making us less safe. I mean our council pushed Biden into the corner with this bill. Had the council not removed the two move controversial parts (jury trials for misdeamors and messing with car jacking laws) it may have passed.

This is just a rant. I’m tired, as someone literally from the center of this city, that we have such progressive members. I’m pretty liberal, but there are so many examples of council leniency on crime, most probably from a push for equitable outcomes or whatever, that they just foster an environment of increased crime. I wish we had a strong ob crime and incarceration set of council members. Read the room. Chicago, NY and now DC. People want safety. Vote for your own safety. It’s nonsense.

Re: criminal justice reform:

George Floyd's murder took place when violent crime was relatively low. Protecting against it wasn't really on most people's radar, save for very low income communities of color. And honestly, they don't have a voice like many others do. And justice reform feels good and hypothetically makes sense. No reasonable person wants to unduly punish people. Most people want the punishment to fit the crime.

What progressive reformers got wrong, however, is that you can't upend the system without downstream effects, most of which will disproportionately impact those most vulnerable communities. So when you provide all the supports to the people committing crimes, you completely overlook the victims. And people take advantage of that. Add to it the huge influx of even more guns into our society, both from increased manufacturer, fear purchases, ghost guns, and the erosion of gun safety laws, and you have a deadly mix.

Guess who suffers the resulting increased violence? Lower income communities of color.

Good criminal justice reform would have been more measured, based on evidence, and would have worked really hard to avoid unintended consequences as much as possible.

It did not. It was governance by twitter. Whatever sounded catchy got the support. And here we are.


Extreme right wing politicians/activists do this too. We just happen to live in a very progressive region.

If I could be bothered to run for office, my platform would be:

1. Park the statehood because it hasn’t happened even when Dems had a full majority; park it until comprehensive studies on pros and cons and scenarios of what would happen have been done, Dems have the full majority again; then referendum first

2. Declare DC a tax haven (no representation other than what we already have, no taxation), like many cities in the world (e.g., Zug Switzerland). The city will grow rich and attractive quickly

3. Introduce Universal basic income for all DC-born citizens, means-tested

4. Build in and mandate Affordable quality housing throughout the city

5. Monitor and adjust Since there would be no more tax, #1 statehood may happen a lot faster

By the time statehood rolls around, I’d have probably sold my skyrocketed properties and move to the actual Switzerland

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

If, as you say, the bill actually lengthens jail terms (which in your eyes doesn't work), then shouldn't you be against it?

No, I accept that if you hold out for perfection, you end up with nothing. Because the Mayor and a few others decided perfection was necessary, we are all getting nothing.

So this mess is all Bowser's fault now? The same Bowser that has been banned from the House floor or whatever cockamamie resolution the mouth-breather Republican chuds passed?

Now they're doing Bowser a favor? You're gonna have to show your work there.

The fact remains that the Council could have passed a bill that was 90-95 percent supported and simply not simply added every DC Justice Lab demand, which is *exactly* what happened (and anyone who shakes their fist at DFER for its shady funding should be extremely curious/furious about the DCJL's funding). Instead, we're back to square one because Charles Allen and his supporters on the Council forget every single rule about politics and now look like complete rubes.

Democrats, including Biden, have been using Bowser's veto to justify the motion for disapproval. Here is Biden's statement (with bolding added):

"I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,

Because, as you say, Bowser was not happy with 5% less than perfection, we get nothing.

Moreover, Bowser was one of the leading voices in spreading a misleading understanding of the bill.

The notion that the feds are doing Bowser's bidding is comically misinformed. Bad policy and inept politics got us here.

The inept politics is entirely on Bowser's part. The Republicans are acting like Republicans. You can't expect more from them than that. But the Democrats believe they were given a green light by Bowser. Biden's own justification is that Bowser objected to the legislation
.

Considering she got the outcome she wanted, I would not be calling Bowser's politics "inept." It's hilarious that you clearly think Allen did a good job here. He's a dismal failure.

Bowser opposed the bill but when Congress stepped in, she pivoted to "Congress needs to mind its own business and this is why DC needs home rule." Weird position to be in.

Some posters have insinuated that the bill proposed some changes that would help prosecutors go after violent criminals and gun crimes, but haven't provided details. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. The people defending the bill have completely failed at giving a detailed, reasoned response. Meanwhile they are getting their lunch eaten over the glaring omission of mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders, along with the possibility that the courts may be overwhelmed with jury trials for misdemeanors.

Why not just take another crack at it and fix those obvious flaws?

This is probably the best objective review of the criminal code revision. Read it and see what you think then:

https://dcist.com/story/23/01/27/does-dc-criminal-code-overhaul-reduce-penalties-violent-offenses

Interesting article - but it exposes a whole host of problems in our system.

They cite a carjacking study by the Sentencing Commission - https://scdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/scdc/release_content/attachments/Carjacking_Fast_Facts.pdf
That report says 97% of carjacking counts received a prison sentence.

Meanwhile the MPD dashboard shows there were 660 carjackings during the Sentencing Commission's study period. https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/carjacking

97% received sentences. But that's of the 34 carjackers who actually got to the point of being prosecuted for sentencing. What about the other 630 carjackings that happened?

And, it's only gotten worse since December 2020. How will the bill improve the number of prosecutions leading to sentencing?

And what about transparency? There is very little transparency from AUSA, have heard that they don't respond to FOIA requests on prosecution stats. Council should address transparency with their crime bill, given the huge disconnect between DC crime stats and sentencing stats which reveals that apparently only a small fraction of crimes and arrests result in anything.

And, allowing for a "racial discrimination" rationale for dropping mandatory minimums for minor offenses and first offenders, but it does not excuse away violent offenses and repeat offenses. Allowing violence and repeat offenses plays into the soft racism of low expectations. I still think we need mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders - and the low side of national average on minimums per the article is 5 years. Council should put mandatory minimum language in for violent and repeat offenders.

For some balance:
Suffice it to say, though, that I hope rational people can agree that Mayor Muriel Bowser, Police Chief Robert Contee, and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are not right-wing media personalities or dilettante pundits. Running through advocates’ side of the argument over this, it seems to me that they can’t decide whether they’re dispelling the myth that this is a soft-on-crime, anti-carceral measure or motivated by the fact that that’s exactly what it is. (…)

Statehood for the District of Columbia is mostly discussed in the national press in terms of its impact on Senate math. The real consequences of non-statehood for people who live in the District, though, include the fact that D.C. does not have state courts. Instead, all the functions that would normally be performed by a state court system are instead performed by special Article II federal courts with local jurisdiction. That’s also why we have a U.S. Attorney performing most of the functions that would normally be performed by a district attorney. But this all means that we rely on Congress to provide the resources the D.C. court system needs to function. On some level, that’s a gift to the city — we are getting services that we don’t pay for in exchange for paying taxes without representation. But on another level, it’s a huge problem. At the end of the day, courts are just not a huge line item in any state’s budget. And in exchange for saving some money, we lack a major piece of self-government.

Note that even under the current criminal code, lack of judicial resources is a huge problem for D.C. (…)

And my suspicion is that we’re moving forward with this plan because:

*** the key people driving it don’t actually think it’s a big problem to de facto decriminalize a lot of misconduct.***

(https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-im-worried-about-dcs-criminal)

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

Not for 12 year old carjackers, though?

Respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. Many of us moderate Democrats/crime concerned citizens and families will vote with our feet and move to the burbs, including my family. This will cause the city’s revenue to continue to plummet. I guess that’s all well and good with you?

Why would you leave? We are stuck with the laws you do desperately wanted to protect.

Those laws, sure. But it’s more so the progressive policies of the last few years (YRA, second look, no chasing atvs, no loss of license for thousands in tickets, etc) that combined don’t help. Plus the push to reduce the police force or its budget. Please not prosecuting teens. I mean we are talking in circles, Jeff.

I agree some changes need to happen, but I err on the side of strict punishment rather than leniency.

The problem is both sides of the political spectrum want to try all their methods out and not be hindered by the others sides’ policies. For example, progressives are so sure their methods work work. They think: “if we just keep studying the root causes of poverty, if we keep throwing money at this, if we spend millions more on violence interruptors, if we allow repeat offenders early release, if we just keep doing this stuff we will ultimately solve the violence crisis and in 20 years we will have been proven right.”

Whereas a lot of more moderate or conservative people are just like: “lock em up, some people need to be away from society for everyone else’s good.”

Having lived in DC my whole life, I am fed up with pouring tax dollars into progressive programs with questionable efficacy (violence interruptors, etc) rather than just clamping down. I get it. We’ve had a reckoning in the last few years, we have studied the disparate impact and who is getting locked up, but like what is the answer? Just increased leniency, tolerance for “certain misdemeanor crimes” and basically shrugging and letting it happen, so there are less arrests and jail sentences across the board? No dude. And the whole country is kind of seeing that that approach causes more crime. Chicago is an example of people being fed up with constant shootings all the time. The whole thing just sucks. The history of how this country came to have so many oppressed and desperate people is really soul crushing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

If, as you say, the bill actually lengthens jail terms (which in your eyes doesn't work), then shouldn't you be against it?

No, I accept that if you hold out for perfection, you end up with nothing. Because the Mayor and a few others decided perfection was necessary, we are all getting nothing.

So this mess is all Bowser's fault now? The same Bowser that has been banned from the House floor or whatever cockamamie resolution the mouth-breather Republican chuds passed?

Now they're doing Bowser a favor? You're gonna have to show your work there.

The fact remains that the Council could have passed a bill that was 90-95 percent supported and simply not simply added every DC Justice Lab demand, which is *exactly* what happened (and anyone who shakes their fist at DFER for its shady funding should be extremely curious/furious about the DCJL's funding). Instead, we're back to square one because Charles Allen and his supporters on the Council forget every single rule about politics and now look like complete rubes.

Democrats, including Biden, have been using Bowser's veto to justify the motion for disapproval. Here is Biden's statement (with bolding added):

"I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,

Because, as you say, Bowser was not happy with 5% less than perfection, we get nothing.

Moreover, Bowser was one of the leading voices in spreading a misleading understanding of the bill.

The notion that the feds are doing Bowser's bidding is comically misinformed. Bad policy and inept politics got us here.

The inept politics is entirely on Bowser's part. The Republicans are acting like Republicans. You can't expect more from them than that. But the Democrats believe they were given a green light by Bowser. Biden's own justification is that Bowser objected to the legislation
.

Considering she got the outcome she wanted, I would not be calling Bowser's politics "inept." It's hilarious that you clearly think Allen did a good job here. He's a dismal failure.

Bowser opposed the bill but when Congress stepped in, she pivoted to "Congress needs to mind its own business and this is why DC needs home rule." Weird position to be in.

Some posters have insinuated that the bill proposed some changes that would help prosecutors go after violent criminals and gun crimes, but haven't provided details. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. The people defending the bill have completely failed at giving a detailed, reasoned response. Meanwhile they are getting their lunch eaten over the glaring omission of mandatory minimums for violent and repeat offenders, along with the possibility that the courts may be overwhelmed with jury trials for misdemeanors.

Why not just take another crack at it and fix those obvious flaws?

This is probably the best objective review of the criminal code revision. Read it and see what you think then:

https://dcist.com/story/23/01/27/does-dc-criminal-code-overhaul-reduce-penalties-violent-offenses

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone here can speak to the will of the people with authority. The quality of like didn’t improve as expected and slid further since the election.

To know the will of the people put it to the referendum. How many support the 2 laws? How many support the statehood no matter what? How many would rather not be taxed?

Puerto Rico people get to vote. In DC we assume.

DC had a referendum on statehood. It passed with 86% support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C.,_statehood_referendum

As for the criminal code revision, how many even understand it? Most of the media has completely misrepresented it. I'd be willing to bet that if voters actually understood the changes, it would have overwhelming support. Unfortunately, we live in a time where "if you are explaining, you are losing" is accepted as a truism. Supporters of the revisions are stuck explaining because so much misinformation has been spread.

For instance, how many are aware the the revision includes new gun offenses and has several enhancements for gun violations that can add prison time to a sentence? Those will be lost if Congress blocks the bill.

But Charles Allen has *repeatedly* said that such enhancements do nothing to lower the crime rate. He said it yesterday on WAMU. So why did he include that? Nothing he does makes a lick of sense. Please, explain it to me, because you clearly think you have all the answers.

Charles Allen can speak for himself and those of you with Charles Allen obsessions should probably look into a more constructive hobby. I personally don't think that longer jail terms have an impact on crime. But those of you who do should be pretty happy with the revision because it provides plenty of jail time.

Not for 12 year old carjackers, though?

Respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. Many of us moderate Democrats/crime concerned citizens and families will vote with our feet and move to the burbs, including my family. This will cause the city’s revenue to continue to plummet. I guess that’s all well and good with you?

Why would you leave? We are stuck with the laws you do desperately wanted to protect.