Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 25 2023 22:49 KwarK wrote: The issue of segregating dangerous individuals for the protection of the rest is a completely different issue to punitive justice. I don’t think they should be confused.
Yes, and just to be clear, I've been talking about the former here, not the latter. I don't want a mentally unstable and dangerous (i.e. prone to violence) person to end up in a prison if they didn't commit serious crimes, but I also wouldn't want a sitation when someone gets hurt by this violence because no actions were taken, or the action was "let's hope they won't forget / refuse to take their meds themselves".
And for the record, I understand that drunk aggressive people are more common. Then again, someone being often drunk and aggressive also might be a sign of something wrong going on in their head or their lives. If someone is often drunk and violent, I'd also vote for enforced therapy and some way to protect people from this person.
I guess my main idea / principle in general is - protect innocents first so they don't become victims, then decide what could be done for rehabilitate the attacker (where "attack" is physical assault, sexual or other harassment, robbery, etc.)
On July 25 2023 22:49 KwarK wrote: The issue of segregating dangerous individuals for the protection of the rest is a completely different issue to punitive justice. I don’t think they should be confused.
Yes, and just to be clear, I've been talking about the former here, not the latter. I don't want a mentally unstable and dangerous (i.e. prone to violence) person to end up in a prison if they didn't commit serious crimes, but I also wouldn't want a sitation when someone gets hurt by this violence because no actions were taken, or the action was "let's hope they won't forget/refuse to take their meds themselves".
And for the record, I understand that drunk aggressive people are more common. Then again, someone being often drunk and aggressive also might be a sign of something wrong going on in their head or their lives. If someone is often drunk and violent, I'd also vote for enforced therapy and some way to protect people from this person.
I guess my main idea / principle in general is - protect innocents first so they don't become victims, then decide what could be done for rehabilitate the attacker (where "attack" is physical assault, sexual or other harassment, robbery, etc.)
What i find confusing here is the conflation of people who can be helped with people who need to be locked away.
In the ideal handling of someone with mental health problems, the police isn't even involved. Instead, there should be street workers, social workers, psychologists and so forth dealing with the situation.
Getting away from people with mental health problems towards criminals: Rehabilitating criminal people is one of the most effective and cheapest ways to make them no longer a danger to others. Locking someone away forever is really expensive (and also inhumane).
The justice system ideally has a double function: Protecting the public and rehabilitating criminals. In the US, it has the third goal of punishing people. That is a problem. Vengeance should not ever be a relevant consideration when dealing with criminals. A justice system should figure out how to most effectively rehabilitate criminals while also minimizing the dangers to others. And yes, sometimes rehabilitation that is impossible. There is a very small amount of people who cannot be rehabilitated. But most criminals can. The core idea here is to give the criminals an actual non-criminal perspective outside of prison.
A secondary idea would be to prevent people from being desperate enough to become criminals. People who have perspectives in live, and are in a good economical position are far less likely to become criminal. People who are constantly one step away from financial ruin are more likely to become criminal.
If you want a safe society, build societal safety nets. Healthcare systems, job safety, workers protections, workers rights, unemployment insurance, social programmes, programmes to help the homeless and cities in which people (and not corporations) are happy to live. Basically, preventively help the potential criminals before they become criminal.
And if someone ends up in prison, once again give them perspectives. Teach them life skills. Teach them a trade. Find ways to integrate them into society. And once they leave prison, check up on them and help them not become criminal again. A person who leaves prison should ideally have a clear path towards living a happy life without becoming criminal again.
That does not mean just sending criminals immediately back onto the streets. That is not how rehabilitation works. Rehabilitation is giving the criminals perspectives to be a productive and happy member of society. If their situation pushed them into crime before, just ignoring that will repeat the previous.
But general principles towards a safer society: Prevention, societal safety nets, rehabilitation, never vengeance.
Oh, in the long run - of course. I thought we were talking about that specific video, and later in general about specific examples - i.e. what could / should be done here and now for this specific person, within the systems that we actually have now. Of course in a better world we would have fewer criminals in jails because there are fewer criminals in general.
On July 26 2023 00:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: Oh, in the long run - of course. I thought we were talking about that specific video, and later in general about specific examples - i.e. what could / should be done here and now for this specific person, within the systems that we actually have now.
Very little thru fuck all. It would be tough over here and every understanding I have of how the US’ safety nets and services operate (for the poor), they’re even worse
If you throw a criminal record into the mix, you’re leaning even closer to fuck all.
You need one of either a really atypical level of innate will and discipline, or a very involved (usually familial) support network, and just a loving family isn’t necessarily sufficient. They need to also give appropriate support. Material support also helps a lot, and not everyone has that to give if even they wanted.
If this individual is anything like me, Bipolar makes it harder to stay stable and takes a lot of management, and any slip can really fuck up long term progression.
Then stack onto ‘I have a harder time anyway’, something like a criminal record.
Also maybe they’re not that intelligent. I think based upon the (usually creatives) public figures who people associate with Bipolar disorder, there’s a certain conception that people who have it have a sort of yin and Yang thing going. Very talented, but struggle with stability. This absolutely is not the case, intellect and talent are just on a normal distribution. I’d assume that so many notable creatives are the kind of public face because the nature of their professions. Your new album is done when it’s done, you’re not trying to remain perpetually stable on a 9-5. Even though I’m doing quite stable now there’s a giant fluctuation in my work output that my boss would find very strange if I hadn’t sat her down in my first week and told her the craic.
But yeah within CURRENT systems, that person is fucked.
Also oops just realised we were potentially talking about this mentally ill person in that apartment bloc Zero was talking about
Depends how stretched services are. We can’t even handle our unfunctionally unstable, nor our rock bottom homeless population’s mental health problems over here. So a person who can hold down an apartment and (presumably) fund that by holding down a job isn’t going to be too high up the priority list. Especially if it’s not them demanding services.
It’s super fucking difficult, funding is too stretched.
Case in point I got some weird messages from guy I know that set off my mental illness equivalent of gaydar. Showed my brother and asked if they seemed at all familiar and immediately ‘That’s like when you got sick’.
Rather stupidly called in at his request to check his new master project, to see if I was on the money. I was, possibly more than I’d wagered, I think if he was a younger man and not in his 60s I would have left immediately, as I couldn’t guarantee my own safety.
Anyway had like, 3 of the most excruciating hours of my life, but gathered enough info to get hold of 2 of his 4 kids, all doctors, including one psychiatrist who I spoke to. The extent of the issue was maybe slightly worse, but they were fully aware, this wasn’t news.
But still not enough to get further intervention. I assume when they’re triaging such things the person with no support whatsoever will ride up higher than the guy with a psychiatrist for a daughter
In this case they basically got told ride it out and if it gets worse try again. And I mean it really CAN’T get much worse than as is, the man is more unwell than anyone I ran into in hospital
On July 26 2023 01:06 WombaT wrote: So a person who can hold down an apartment and (presumably) fund that by holding down a job isn’t going to be too high up the priority list. Especially if it’s not them demanding services.
I'm not sure this guy had a job back then when I knew him - I don't actually know anything about his work life but he lived with his mom being ~30 years old or so, and the rumours were that he can't hold a stable job. Of course, this migth be not true, but it was a typical case of "oh, right, it makes sense" because it did fit what I already knew. And as I said he tried to sell me his mom's jewelry.
If you want a safe society, build societal safety nets. Healthcare systems, job safety, workers protections, workers rights, unemployment insurance, social programmes, programmes to help the homeless and cities in which people (and not corporations) are happy to live. Basically, preventively help the potential criminals before they become criminal.
It's definitely not pointless...It's basically seen as a preferable alternative (by those in power) to what you suggest.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
A surprising amount of US laws are leftovers of stuff like that, for another example:
Prohibitions against loitering date back to Jim Crow-era “Black codes,” laws designed to control Black communities after the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Kentucky let loiterers be arrested and “bound out to the highest bidder for a year’s service,” ... These Jim Crow laws didn’t explicitly mention race, but, like anti-loitering laws today, in practice gave police broad license to harass and persecute Black people for the crime of existing in public.
I'm not for locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possession. The problem with the SF bay area and other large cities is they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims.
A third of all shoplifting arrests in NYC last year were committed by 327 people. Collectively they were arrested more than 6,000 times. This is insane. There's literally zero incentive for police officers to do their jobs to prevent crime if the people they arrest for it are back on the street the next day to commit the same crimes.
This guy was arrested 5 times in 2020 on multiple burglary charges but was still free to stab a 94 year old Asian women.
One Walgreen's in San Francisco has resorted to putting chains and padlocks on the frozen food section. The news station covering the story encountered multiple shoplifters just in the first hour of being there and one even explained to them why he's shoplifting, "It's San Francisco, bro." Lmao
People in SF just accept this as part of life, along with the constant car break ins. If you tell someone your car was broken into in SF people will be like "Did you leave anything valuable in sight though?" They consider that a normal response. It's like telling a rape victim "Were you wearing a mini-skirt though?"
It's such a tragedy to see such a great city fall in such an unnecessary way.
On July 27 2023 05:09 BlackJack wrote: I'm not for locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possession. The problem with the SF bay area and other large cities is they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims.
A third of all shoplifting arrests in NYC last year were committed by 327 people. Collectively they were arrested more than 6,000 times. This is insane. There's literally zero incentive for police officers to do their jobs to prevent crime if the people they arrest for it are back on the street the next day to commit the same crimes.
One Walgreen's in San Francisco has resorted to putting chains and padlocks on the frozen food section. The news station covering the story encountered multiple shoplifters just in the first hour of being there and one even explained to them why he's shoplifting, "It's San Francisco, bro." Lmao
People in SF just accept this as part of life, along with the constant car break ins. If you tell someone your car was broken into in SF people will be like "Did you leave anything valuable in sight though?" They consider that a normal response. It's like telling a rape victim "Were you wearing a mini-skirt though?"
It's such a tragedy to see such a great city fall in such an unnecessary way.
Cauich stabbed the woman while he was out on probation. He did time.
"Cauich was convicted on multiple burglary charges in March, receiving a one-year jail sentence along with probation. He ultimately served more than 100 days before being released early in April, the Chronicle reported, citing court records."
On July 27 2023 05:09 BlackJack wrote: I'm not for locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possession. The problem with the SF bay area and other large cities is they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims.
A third of all shoplifting arrests in NYC last year were committed by 327 people. Collectively they were arrested more than 6,000 times. This is insane. There's literally zero incentive for police officers to do their jobs to prevent crime if the people they arrest for it are back on the street the next day to commit the same crimes.
One Walgreen's in San Francisco has resorted to putting chains and padlocks on the frozen food section. The news station covering the story encountered multiple shoplifters just in the first hour of being there and one even explained to them why he's shoplifting, "It's San Francisco, bro." Lmao
People in SF just accept this as part of life, along with the constant car break ins. If you tell someone your car was broken into in SF people will be like "Did you leave anything valuable in sight though?" They consider that a normal response. It's like telling a rape victim "Were you wearing a mini-skirt though?"
It's such a tragedy to see such a great city fall in such an unnecessary way.
Cauich stabbed the woman while he was out on probation. He did time.
"Cauich was convicted on multiple burglary charges in March, receiving a one-year jail sentence along with probation. He ultimately served more than 100 days before being released early in April, the Chronicle reported, citing court records."
The max penalty for first degree burglary is 6 years. 100~ days is not much for a career criminal repeat offender. After he was released in April he was arrested again in May for burglary. He was released back onto the streets again in June and that's when he stabs the 94 year old woman.
2020 - 5 arrests for burglary April 2021 - released from jail for burglary May 2021 - arrested again for burglary June 2021 - released from jail June 2021 stabs woman
On July 27 2023 05:09 BlackJack wrote: I'm not for locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possession. The problem with the SF bay area and other large cities is they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims.
A third of all shoplifting arrests in NYC last year were committed by 327 people. Collectively they were arrested more than 6,000 times. This is insane. There's literally zero incentive for police officers to do their jobs to prevent crime if the people they arrest for it are back on the street the next day to commit the same crimes.
One Walgreen's in San Francisco has resorted to putting chains and padlocks on the frozen food section. The news station covering the story encountered multiple shoplifters just in the first hour of being there and one even explained to them why he's shoplifting, "It's San Francisco, bro." Lmao
People in SF just accept this as part of life, along with the constant car break ins. If you tell someone your car was broken into in SF people will be like "Did you leave anything valuable in sight though?" They consider that a normal response. It's like telling a rape victim "Were you wearing a mini-skirt though?"
It's such a tragedy to see such a great city fall in such an unnecessary way.
Cauich stabbed the woman while he was out on probation. He did time.
"Cauich was convicted on multiple burglary charges in March, receiving a one-year jail sentence along with probation. He ultimately served more than 100 days before being released early in April, the Chronicle reported, citing court records."
The max penalty for first degree burglary is 6 years. 100~ days is not much for a career criminal repeat offender. After he was released in April he was arrested again in May for burglary. He was released back onto the streets again in June and that's when he stabs the 94 year old woman.
2020 - 5 arrests for burglary April 2021 - released from jail for burglary May 2021 - arrested again for burglary June 2021 - released from jail June 2021 stabs woman
So it's not "they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims", as you said before, but rather that we see repeat offenders because the jail time / punishment for the first or second offense isn't extreme enough to act as a deterrent for the future once they're done serving time? It's definitely a problem if we see people repeating offenses over and over again. While one way to handle it would be to increase the punishment, I would hope that criminals also receive some sort of rehabilitation/support too.
On July 27 2023 05:09 BlackJack wrote: I'm not for locking up people for victimless crimes like drug possession. The problem with the SF bay area and other large cities is they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims.
A third of all shoplifting arrests in NYC last year were committed by 327 people. Collectively they were arrested more than 6,000 times. This is insane. There's literally zero incentive for police officers to do their jobs to prevent crime if the people they arrest for it are back on the street the next day to commit the same crimes.
One Walgreen's in San Francisco has resorted to putting chains and padlocks on the frozen food section. The news station covering the story encountered multiple shoplifters just in the first hour of being there and one even explained to them why he's shoplifting, "It's San Francisco, bro." Lmao
People in SF just accept this as part of life, along with the constant car break ins. If you tell someone your car was broken into in SF people will be like "Did you leave anything valuable in sight though?" They consider that a normal response. It's like telling a rape victim "Were you wearing a mini-skirt though?"
It's such a tragedy to see such a great city fall in such an unnecessary way.
Cauich stabbed the woman while he was out on probation. He did time.
"Cauich was convicted on multiple burglary charges in March, receiving a one-year jail sentence along with probation. He ultimately served more than 100 days before being released early in April, the Chronicle reported, citing court records."
The max penalty for first degree burglary is 6 years. 100~ days is not much for a career criminal repeat offender. After he was released in April he was arrested again in May for burglary. He was released back onto the streets again in June and that's when he stabs the 94 year old woman.
2020 - 5 arrests for burglary April 2021 - released from jail for burglary May 2021 - arrested again for burglary June 2021 - released from jail June 2021 stabs woman
So it's not "they don't lock people up even for crimes with victims", as you said before, but rather that we see repeat offenders because the jail time / punishment for the first or second offense isn't extreme enough to act as a deterrent for the future once they're done serving time? It's definitely a problem if we see people repeating offenses over and over again. While one way to handle it would be to increase the punishment, I would hope that criminals also receive some sort of rehabilitation/support too.
yeah I don't think the lack of extreme punishment is the problem. You could put the death penalty on it and they would still be repeat offenders simply because they don't see another choice.
Poor people steal because they are desperate, land in jail and then when they come out they have even less work/future prospects so they go right back to stealing.
If there's a proven method to lower recidivism I'll be all for it. Progressive DA's funded by George Soros that offer softer sentences doesn't seem like the way to magically lower recidivism. In the case of the burglar I mentioned earlier that was arrested multiple times for burglary and served 100 days out of a maximum sentence of 6 years. All you're doing is allowing him to reoffend 6 times in 1 year instead of 1 time in 6 years. Neither method is preventing the chance he reoffends, you're just increasing the number of times he reoffends.
The 327 shoplifters that have been arrested 6,000 times is an even better example of that.
On July 27 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote: If there's a proven method to lower recidivism I'll be all for it. Progressive DA's funded by George Soros that offer softer sentences doesn't seem like the way to magically lower recidivism. In the case of the burglar I mentioned earlier that was arrested multiple times for burglary and served 100 days out of a maximum sentence of 6 years. All you're doing is allowing him to reoffend 6 times in 1 year instead of 1 time in 6 years. Neither method is preventing the chance he reoffends, you're just increasing the number of times he reoffends.
The 327 shoplifters that have been arrested 6,000 times is an even better example of that.
What would you suggest? I agree with JimmiC and Gorsameth that harsher punishments aren't going to stop people from repeated burglary or shoplifting, because when they get out of jail for the first or second offense, they find themselves in the exact same position they were in beforehand in an even worse position than before, because they'll be poor/desperate *and* even less likely to find a job now, given their new criminal history.
Is it normal in the US to check criminal records for job interviews?
Because I hired a few people here and a criminal background check was never even mentioned by anyone, be it my superiour, our HR or anyone else. I hired people working in accounting that with some ingenuity and effort could do serious harm/theft (be it money or just data).
Yes. It’s standard for almost all jobs. If you have a criminal record then you’re unlikely to ever be able to work anything but food service or manual labour.
On July 27 2023 14:12 Velr wrote: Is it normal in the US to check criminal records for job interviews?
Because I hired a few people here and a criminal background check was never even mentioned by anyone, be it my superiour, our HR or anyone else. I hired people working in accounting that with some ingenuity and effort could do serious harm/theft (be it money or just data).
This is one of those things that the US and most of Europe treat very differently.
On July 27 2023 14:16 KwarK wrote: Yes. It’s standard for almost all jobs. If you have a criminal record then you’re unlikely to ever be able to work anything but food service or manual labour.
Combine that with typical requirements to find work (or else be sent back to prison) and an already exploitative labor market (where Biden and the Fed are still determined to weaken workers minimal leverage even further) and you have people desperate for work and businesses ready to exploit them.
There's stories like this around the country, but here's one example:
For years, nonunion labor brokers in the New York City construction industry have targeted workers who have recently been released from prison and are under parole supervision or other court surveillance programs, in a move that many say ensures low wages and poses a serious safety risk for employees.
Known as “body shops”, these labor brokers hire and pay workers to perform work for third party companies, profiting by taking a cut of the wages paid by the company. The labor brokers end up competing in a race to drive down labor costs through wage suppression and cutting corners on training and safety.
Former prisoners are usually required to look for work as a condition of their release, so they may be willing to take any job they can get to avoid being returned to jail on a parole violation. It’s not an idle threat: New York imprisoned individuals nearly three times the national average in 2019 for technical parole violations, consisting of 40% of all individuals admitted to prisons in the state. Body shop employers exploit those work requirements to pay parolees’ low wages under unsafe working conditions.
In 2020, there were an estimated 9,173 re-entry construction workers in New York City, and construction work accounted for about 24% of all jobs for recently released prisoners. Typical wages for these workers is just above the city’s minimum wage, with no benefits, while union members in the New York City construction industry start at more than $28 an hour plus benefits.
They're likely to bump into similar circumstances (discrimination, exploitation, generally poor treatment, "slumlords", etc) for similar reasons when it comes to getting housing as well
EPT
