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 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.
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.
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
Are you arguing that a maximum sentence of 6 years rather than 100 days would've prevented Cauich from stabbing someone once he's released? Does that make a positive difference in his psychology and general attitude towards people? Would a maximum sentence have made him less dangerous?
The stabbing is unrelated to his prior crimes. And neither can we put the maximum sentence on people to prevent them from commiting the same crime again, as that would imply that we should lock up repeat offenders for life. If we follow this rationale, someone who robs only twice would have to be considered too dangerous and thus incarcerated for life. That is completely absurd.
When you think about the problem like that, you might find that the cause and the solution doesn't currently exist within prison walls. Punishment does not work, in fact it might make the problem worse. It's time that the American people understand that they must put funding towards rehabilitation and away from incarceration. Prisons must be reformed into opportunities for rehabilitation. The concept of imprisoning people to begin with must also face much greater scrutiny. And the concept of longer sentences for enhanced punishment must be scratched altogether - it should serve as an extended opportunity for rehabilitation, and in very severe cases as extended protection for the population.
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.
This right here is among the many causes for previous offenders to repeat their crime. They're literally telling us in interviews that they'd rather go to prison than starve on the streets. Their actions prove that their words are true.
There's a concept in psychology which is used to help people accomplish things in life. It's the relatively basic (but somehow very neglected) concept of making those tasks easier that are desirable and those tasks harder that are undesirable.
At Google they did little things like moving the candy section further away from people's offices and bringing healthy food options into closer proximity, both physically and optically. Candy and soda remains out of sight and takes longer to get to. Healthy fruits are constantly in sight and are very easy to access. That simple change led to a significant reduction of obesity at the company.
For crime the same concept applies. Incarceration does not make crime harder, it makes it impossible. But once out, it actually incentivices crime because the alternatives are much harder for those with a criminal record, of which many even lost everything during their time in prison. To change this would require that criminals are given easy access to housing, but the areas in which they live are filled with useless offices rather than apartment blocks, and there are many abandoned buildings that could be restored to further add housing options. Job opportunities are harder to come by especially for juvenile offenders because their education was interrupted in prison. It's similar for adult inmates who don't have the opportunity to update their skills in accordance with the market demand. They're literally idle in the prisons. When they come out they are filled with hope of never going back to prison, but very little perspective on how to fulfill that dream.
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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
The organized retail theft that is occurring in our large cities is not people stealing food to keep themselves from starving. It's people stealing non-essential items to then sell in fencing operations. Food is the least profitable thing to steal.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I agree with your post, the best way to prevent crime is the ensure people can have a job and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately the SF Bay Area also suffers from dysfunction of NIMBYism and busy-body bureaucrats that have made it a nightmare to try to build more affordable housing the city desperately needs.
Take for example the owner of a laundromat that wanted to sell his property to allow for a 75-unit mixed using housing development. Anti-development activists were able to sandbag him by claiming the laundromat could have "historical significant" and city bureaucrats demanded he pay for a study into the issue.
Tillman consented, paying $23,000 for a 135-page report which determined, several months later, that his property was not in fact a historic resource. In a sane world Tillman would be allowed to proceed with his project. In San Francisco, he is now being asked to perform yet another study, this time to measure the effect of shadow on a nearby school.
Basically anyone that wants to build any housing can just be delayed for all eternity by motivated people that oppose the project.
I'd say soft-on-crime DAs is just one of many reasons that San Francisco is in the muck that it finds itself in.
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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
The organized retail theft that is occurring in our large cities is not people stealing food to keep themselves from starving. It's people stealing non-essential items to then sell in fencing operations. Food is the least profitable thing to steal.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I agree with your post, the best way to prevent crime is the ensure people can have a job and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately the SF Bay Area also suffers from dysfunction of NIMBYism and busy-body bureaucrats that have made it a nightmare to try to build more affordable housing the city desperately needs.
Take for example the owner of a laundromat that wanted to sell his property to allow for a 75-unit mixed using housing development. Anti-development activists were able to sandbag him by claiming the laundromat could have "historical significant" and city bureaucrats demanded he pay for a study into the issue.
Tillman consented, paying $23,000 for a 135-page report which determined, several months later, that his property was not in fact a historic resource. In a sane world Tillman would be allowed to proceed with his project. In San Francisco, he is now being asked to perform yet another study, this time to measure the effect of shadow on a nearby school.
Basically anyone that wants to build any housing can just be delayed for all eternity by motivated people that oppose the project.
I'd say soft-on-crime DAs is just one of many reasons that San Francisco is in the muck that it finds itself in.
So the obvious solution is to imprison every criminal for life. That way they can never commit crimes again. Recidivism is solved!
Sounds to me like this issue has very little to do with the DA and entirely rests on a complete lack of reintegration path for convicts and a lack of social safety net in preventing them from falling to crime in the first place. Throwing poor people in jail doesn't solve anything, they just get replaced by new poor people who go through the exact same path until all your prisons are full and your doing nothing but building new prisons to house all the new poor people that keep popping up.
Your bailing out water of a ship with a massive hole in the side and no intention of ever fixing the hole. Your bailing isn't going to save the ship, it just makes it take a tiny bit longer to sink and ensures you'll drown tired.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Just hang them all, that'll guarantee they never commit more than one crime ever. Surely you don't object to logic behind 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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
The organized retail theft that is occurring in our large cities is not people stealing food to keep themselves from starving. It's people stealing non-essential items to then sell in fencing operations. Food is the least profitable thing to steal.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I agree with your post, the best way to prevent crime is the ensure people can have a job and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately the SF Bay Area also suffers from dysfunction of NIMBYism and busy-body bureaucrats that have made it a nightmare to try to build more affordable housing the city desperately needs.
Take for example the owner of a laundromat that wanted to sell his property to allow for a 75-unit mixed using housing development. Anti-development activists were able to sandbag him by claiming the laundromat could have "historical significant" and city bureaucrats demanded he pay for a study into the issue.
Tillman consented, paying $23,000 for a 135-page report which determined, several months later, that his property was not in fact a historic resource. In a sane world Tillman would be allowed to proceed with his project. In San Francisco, he is now being asked to perform yet another study, this time to measure the effect of shadow on a nearby school.
Basically anyone that wants to build any housing can just be delayed for all eternity by motivated people that oppose the project.
I'd say soft-on-crime DAs is just one of many reasons that San Francisco is in the muck that it finds itself in.
So you agree with their analysis on why recidvism happens, you understand that being harder on crime doesn't actually prevent crime, but you still think 'soft on crime DAs' are a significant enough part of the problem that it bears pointing out again?
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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
The organized retail theft that is occurring in our large cities is not people stealing food to keep themselves from starving. It's people stealing non-essential items to then sell in fencing operations. Food is the least profitable thing to steal.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I agree with your post, the best way to prevent crime is the ensure people can have a job and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately the SF Bay Area also suffers from dysfunction of NIMBYism and busy-body bureaucrats that have made it a nightmare to try to build more affordable housing the city desperately needs.
Take for example the owner of a laundromat that wanted to sell his property to allow for a 75-unit mixed using housing development. Anti-development activists were able to sandbag him by claiming the laundromat could have "historical significant" and city bureaucrats demanded he pay for a study into the issue.
Tillman consented, paying $23,000 for a 135-page report which determined, several months later, that his property was not in fact a historic resource. In a sane world Tillman would be allowed to proceed with his project. In San Francisco, he is now being asked to perform yet another study, this time to measure the effect of shadow on a nearby school.
Basically anyone that wants to build any housing can just be delayed for all eternity by motivated people that oppose the project.
I'd say soft-on-crime DAs is just one of many reasons that San Francisco is in the muck that it finds itself in.
So you agree with their analysis on why recidvism happens, you understand that being harder on crime doesn't actually prevent crime, but you still think 'soft on crime DAs' are a significant enough part of the problem that it bears pointing out again?
No, I do think being harder on crime prevents crime. I don't know how many times I can reiterate this. 5 burglary arrests in 1 year is equal to 30 burglary arrests in 6 years. That's also only the times you were caught, nobody gets arrested on 100% of the crimes they commit. So maybe its hundreds of burglaries, who knows. How many slaps on the wrist can you dole out before you think maybe that's not working? 327 people arrested 6,000 times in 1 year. Ever heard that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity?
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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
The organized retail theft that is occurring in our large cities is not people stealing food to keep themselves from starving. It's people stealing non-essential items to then sell in fencing operations. Food is the least profitable thing to steal.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I agree with your post, the best way to prevent crime is the ensure people can have a job and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately the SF Bay Area also suffers from dysfunction of NIMBYism and busy-body bureaucrats that have made it a nightmare to try to build more affordable housing the city desperately needs.
Take for example the owner of a laundromat that wanted to sell his property to allow for a 75-unit mixed using housing development. Anti-development activists were able to sandbag him by claiming the laundromat could have "historical significant" and city bureaucrats demanded he pay for a study into the issue.
Tillman consented, paying $23,000 for a 135-page report which determined, several months later, that his property was not in fact a historic resource. In a sane world Tillman would be allowed to proceed with his project. In San Francisco, he is now being asked to perform yet another study, this time to measure the effect of shadow on a nearby school.
Basically anyone that wants to build any housing can just be delayed for all eternity by motivated people that oppose the project.
I'd say soft-on-crime DAs is just one of many reasons that San Francisco is in the muck that it finds itself in.
So the obvious solution is to imprison every criminal for life. That way they can never commit crimes again. Recidivism is solved!
Sounds to me like this issue has very little to do with the DA and entirely rests on a complete lack of reintegration path for convicts and a lack of social safety net in preventing them from falling to crime in the first place. Throwing poor people in jail doesn't solve anything, they just get replaced by new poor people who go through the exact same path until all your prisons are full and your doing nothing but building new prisons to house all the new poor people that keep popping up.
Your bailing out water of a ship with a massive hole in the side and no intention of ever fixing the hole. Your bailing isn't going to save the ship, it just makes it take a tiny bit longer to sink and ensures you'll drown tired.
Actually the vast majority of poor people are not career criminals
There is 0 evidence that being harder on crime prevents or reduces crime and plenty of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence being harder on crime actually increases crime rates.
You're really going to have to do more than just feelscrafting if you're trying to make the point that being harder on crime works to reduce crime rates, no matter how many times you reiterate the same feelscraft.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Just hang them all, that'll guarantee they never commit more than one crime ever. Surely you don't object to logic behind that.
Alternatively since people here seem to think longer sentences don't reduce crime then that must mean shorter sentences don't increase crime. The logical conclusion to that is that 0 days in jail is just as effective a deterrent as any other sentence so just get rid of prisons altogether - you won't have any increase in crime and you don't have to spend money on prisons.
I imagine statements that being "harder" or "less hard" on crime, and whether they increase or decrease crime rates, depend a great deal on the starting point. If there are no laws or rules in a crowded society, being a bit stricter is very different from if laws were already extremely strictly enforced with the average penalty for shoplifting being life in prison and the penalties were further increased.
I guess it's obvious that we're talking about today's crime situation in the USA as a starting point, but lots of these over-generalized statements being thrown around are suspect to me.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Just hang them all, that'll guarantee they never commit more than one crime ever. Surely you don't object to logic behind that.
Alternatively since people here seem to think longer sentences don't reduce crime then that must mean shorter sentences don't increase crime. The logical conclusion to that is that 0 days in jail is just as effective a deterrent as any other sentence so just get rid of prisons altogether - you won't have any increase in crime and you don't have to spend money on prisons.
If by 'people' you mean the prevailing research, then yes.
You can strawman that all you want, your position simply isn't supported scientifically or by reality.
I think it is totally reasonable that a tough on crime approach can work to reduce crime. Three strikes and you're out laws can probably reduce crime. I'm also pretty confident hanging people for smoking weed would reduce weed consumption. I talked with some filipino ladies at my old workplace and they said duterte was their best president ever and he had really reduced crime rates.
The problem with these approaches are a) locking people up for life or killing them is inhumane (not talking about convicted murderers here although I generally feel that way about them too) and b) if you are releasing people from prison you need to give them a viable path to a life of non-crime.
As I've claimed before, you can't just view the penal system in isolation. A very lenient penal system in a cutthroat society ends up allowing for cutthroats to roam about. So you need to fix the element of society that makes people turn to crime before/while fixing how you deal with criminals. Of course, the US, especially with how different different states, cities and counties are, is an incoherent country, which prefers a bandaid solution to political issues over sensible foresight, and consequently they get the full range from ineffective to inhumane. In a sense, it isn't too different from the approach of socialized losses and privatized gains seen in response to the 08 financial crisis.
Basically imo the issue with killing criminals or lifetime incarceration isn't that it can't help stop crime but that it is inherently inhumane, but having no coherent system of rehabilitation and a society full of abject poverty and plagued by competitiveness at every level making people who 'fail' feel like losers who end up having no affection for the society they are part of, doesn't really allow for giving gentle slaps on the wrist for committing violent crime.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Just hang them all, that'll guarantee they never commit more than one crime ever. Surely you don't object to logic behind that.
Alternatively since people here seem to think longer sentences don't reduce crime then that must mean shorter sentences don't increase crime. The logical conclusion to that is that 0 days in jail is just as effective a deterrent as any other sentence so just get rid of prisons altogether - you won't have any increase in crime and you don't have to spend money on prisons.
If by 'people' you mean the prevailing research, then yes.
You can strawman that all you want, your position simply isn't supported scientifically or by reality.
Sorry, what's the strawman here? That's literally your argument - being harder on crime does not reduce crime. By that logic a punishment of 1 day in jail is just as effective as any other sentence so why even have a prison system at all? Do you just want retribution or what?
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.
Threatening someone with 6 years in prison isn't going to stop a starving man from stealing food. Heck prison just means a stable food source and a roof over your head. At some point your going to stab someone just to get a longer prison sentence so you don't have to go back to starving in a cardboard box on the street.
The proven method to lower recidivism is to help people out of prison get their life back. Help them get a decent paying job and a house so they have a roof over their head and food on the table. Then they don't have to steal just to survive and actually have something to lose by going back to jail, rather then jail practically being an improvement.
The organized retail theft that is occurring in our large cities is not people stealing food to keep themselves from starving. It's people stealing non-essential items to then sell in fencing operations. Food is the least profitable thing to steal.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I agree with your post, the best way to prevent crime is the ensure people can have a job and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately the SF Bay Area also suffers from dysfunction of NIMBYism and busy-body bureaucrats that have made it a nightmare to try to build more affordable housing the city desperately needs.
Take for example the owner of a laundromat that wanted to sell his property to allow for a 75-unit mixed using housing development. Anti-development activists were able to sandbag him by claiming the laundromat could have "historical significant" and city bureaucrats demanded he pay for a study into the issue.
Tillman consented, paying $23,000 for a 135-page report which determined, several months later, that his property was not in fact a historic resource. In a sane world Tillman would be allowed to proceed with his project. In San Francisco, he is now being asked to perform yet another study, this time to measure the effect of shadow on a nearby school.
Basically anyone that wants to build any housing can just be delayed for all eternity by motivated people that oppose the project.
I'd say soft-on-crime DAs is just one of many reasons that San Francisco is in the muck that it finds itself in.
So you agree with their analysis on why recidvism happens, you understand that being harder on crime doesn't actually prevent crime, but you still think 'soft on crime DAs' are a significant enough part of the problem that it bears pointing out again?
No, I do think being harder on crime prevents crime. I don't know how many times I can reiterate this. 5 burglary arrests in 1 year is equal to 30 burglary arrests in 6 years. That's also only the times you were caught, nobody gets arrested on 100% of the crimes they commit. So maybe its hundreds of burglaries, who knows. How many slaps on the wrist can you dole out before you think maybe that's not working? 327 people arrested 6,000 times in 1 year. Ever heard that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity?
Just a reminder that what you're calling a slap on the wrist is jail time. I think a lot of us agree that jail time isn't fixing the issue (whereas rehabilitation/support might), so I'm not sure why your solution is more jail time.
Also I didn't say a 6 year prison sentence would make someone less likely to commit a crime. I said a 6 year prison sentence would guarantee they only commit their crimes one every 6 years instead of 6 times every 1 year. Surely you don't object to the logic behind that. It's hard to get arrested for burglary 5 times in 1 year if the first time you are in jail for the rest of the year, wouldn't you agree?
Just hang them all, that'll guarantee they never commit more than one crime ever. Surely you don't object to logic behind that.
Alternatively since people here seem to think longer sentences don't reduce crime then that must mean shorter sentences don't increase crime. The logical conclusion to that is that 0 days in jail is just as effective a deterrent as any other sentence so just get rid of prisons altogether - you won't have any increase in crime and you don't have to spend money on prisons.
If by 'people' you mean the prevailing research, then yes.
You can strawman that all you want, your position simply isn't supported scientifically or by reality.
Sorry, what's the strawman here? That's literally your argument - being harder on crime does not reduce crime. By that logic a punishment of 1 day in jail is just as effective as any other sentence so why even have a prison system at all? Do you just want retribution or what?
So you start by asking what the strawman is before literally repeating the strawman?
Once again, you can feelscraft this all you want, your position simply doesn't match empirical evidence or scientific studies.
I think two things can be true at the same time. Punishment of a specific crime can reduce its prevalence. But at the same time that can cause needless suffering in several ways (affecting both innocent and guilty individuals). These are not contradictory ideas.
If there was an abstract line we could draw that goes straight from harsher punishment to a reduced violent crime rate, and there were no negative consequences at all, it would be quite hard to argue against that. But the truth is there are many downsides, some unintended and some very intentional. Revealing all of them and repeating them until people accept them as true is an effort that is necessary to change people's perception of criminality altogether.
A serial killer obviously belongs behind bars for life. This is for people's safety, because we know from the research that serial killers are highly likely to strike again once they're released. Rehabilitation efforts don't seem to have an effect on them. Drugging them might work, but that leads to ethical concerns as well as practical limitations.
On the flipside, a mentally challenged individual who can't operate a cashier by themselves doesn't belong behind bars. People who abuse drugs don't belong there either - and it's important to note that drugs do make people more dangerous, but we don't send alcohol addicts to prison for possession of alcohol. To a third party observer, alcohol is more dangerous than coke or heroin. Here there's a need for greater consistency. The battle against heavy drugs should take place against the cartels, not against users. And that battle can be won systemically and culturally. Spain is an example with its harm-reduction policy. Cartels go where there is demand, and demand subsides when users receive effective help in going clean on their own terms. Again it's a community effort that breaks the cycle, mostly done through social work. Imprisoning addicts is ineffective, and could even be perpetuating the cycle.
Thus in reality there is no line going from punishment straight to less crime without any repercussions. That idea is a fantasy.
On July 27 2023 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think it is totally reasonable that a tough on crime approach can work to reduce crime. Three strikes and you're out laws can probably reduce crime. I'm also pretty confident hanging people for smoking weed would reduce weed consumption. I talked with some filipino ladies at my old workplace and they said duterte was their best president ever and he had really reduced crime rates.
The problem with these approaches are a) locking people up for life or killing them is inhumane (not talking about convicted murderers here although I generally feel that way about them too) and b) if you are releasing people from prison you need to give them a viable path to a life of non-crime.
As I've claimed before, you can't just view the penal system in isolation. A very lenient penal system in a cutthroat society ends up allowing for cutthroats to roam about. So you need to fix the element of society that makes people turn to crime before/while fixing how you deal with criminals. Of course, the US, especially with how different different states, cities and counties are, is an incoherent country, which prefers a bandaid solution to political issues over sensible foresight, and consequently they get the full range from ineffective to inhumane. In a sense, it isn't too different from the approach of socialized losses and privatized gains seen in response to the 08 financial crisis.
Basically imo the issue with killing criminals or lifetime incarceration isn't that it can't help stop crime but that it is inherently inhumane, but having no coherent system of rehabilitation and a society full of abject poverty and plagued by competitiveness at every level making people who 'fail' feel like losers who end up having no affection for the society they are part of, doesn't really allow for giving gentle slaps on the wrist for committing violent crime.
I'd also like to mention that (besides being inhumane) both life in prison and the death penalty are very expensive, both directly (prison costs and so forth) and through a waste of resources.
Most people don't really contribute a lot to society until they are maybe 20 years old or so. Up until that point, society invests a lot of resources into those people, even in the shittiest circumstances. Just killing them off on a mistake means you wasted all of those resources invested in turning a baby into a hopefully capable adult. And life in prison is basically the same as killing them off, because a prisoner also contributes a net negative to society.
So yes, if you inprison someone who shoplifted once for life, that person will not shoplift again, as that is impossible to do in prison. But that response is neither reasonable, nor is it the most effective way of dealing with the problem. The most effective way would result in said shoplifter being turned into someone who provides a net benefit to society at the minimum cost. Just preventing another shoplifting shouldn't be the only goal of the justice system here.
EPT
