Breakdown In Civil Order

[Loren Pechtel]

Bu that's not all.

Gascon has been widely criticized for his controversial juvenile diversion program launched in December. In a memo to staff, he directed prosecutors not to pursue charges against minors for a wide range of offenses, including sexual battery, burglary, vehicle theft, assaults or robberies, barring they did not result in serious injury or were committed while in commission of a firearm, The Times reported.

Those are some rather serious offenses that you can get away with if you are a minor. I mean sexual battery and other assaults? Burglary and robbery? Grand theft auto? Those need to be prosecuted regardless of the age of the offender. 15 and 16 year olds should not be getting away with all that.

Did you miss the part about diversion programs?

 

[ZiprHead]

Despite some right-wingers' screeching about compassion for crime victims, I notice a lack of interest in restitution and Restorative Justice

Restorative justice repairs the harms caused by crime. When victims, offenders and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results can be transformational.

It emphasizes accountability, making amends, and — if they are interested — facilitated meetings between victims, offenders, and other persons.

This is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that their real feelings about crime victims are very different.

I've long thought that many right-wingers consider crime a kind of rebellion, to be ruthlessly suppressed.

I've been a fan of RJ since I first heard about it and did a little research on it. Seems like a very promising program.

 

[bilby]

The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.

Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

Both.

 

[bilby]

The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.

Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

This does seem to be the policy difference. What’s best for the criminals vs. what’s best for the victim / public safety.

Nope.

The difference is what's best for society as a whole, vs. what's most satisfying to revenge fantasists without helping anyone.

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

Creating a situation in which crime is uncommon is a massively more effective approach than creating a situation in which crime is common, but often harshly punished.

The assumption that harsh punishment deters crime has been comprehensively shown to be false, and that should surprise nobody. Criminals don't consider the possible punishments for their crimes before they commit them. Criminals don't expect to be caught.

Back in the days when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, bread was still frequently stolen. But never when bread was available to all, free of charge.

 

[Trausti]

The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.

Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

This does seem to be the policy difference. What’s best for the criminals vs. what’s best for the victim / public safety.

Nope.

The difference is what's best for society as a whole, vs. what's most satisfying to revenge fantasists without helping anyone.

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

Creating a situation in which crime is uncommon is a massively more effective approach than creating a situation in which crime is common, but often harshly punished.

The assumption that harsh punishment deters crime has been comprehensively shown to be false, and that should surprise nobody. Criminals don't consider the possible punishments for their crimes before they commit them. Criminals don't expect to be caught.

Back in the days when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, bread was still frequently stolen. But never when bread was available to all, free of charge.

The state has a monopoly on violence with the understanding that it will use it. If does not, then the people will. Surely, what would be best for the criminal is to avoid vigilante justice. And incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.

 

[bilby]

The problem here isn't a lack of authoritarianism (sorry, it's called "rule of law" when it happens to people who you want to dehumanise); It's a lack of compassion, which you are demonstrating far more effectively than is acceptable for a person with pretentions to being civilised.

Is that a lack of compassion for the violent attacker or for the victim of his assault?

This does seem to be the policy difference. What’s best for the criminals vs. what’s best for the victim / public safety.

Nope.

The difference is what's best for society as a whole, vs. what's most satisfying to revenge fantasists without helping anyone.

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

Creating a situation in which crime is uncommon is a massively more effective approach than creating a situation in which crime is common, but often harshly punished.

The assumption that harsh punishment deters crime has been comprehensively shown to be false, and that should surprise nobody. Criminals don't consider the possible punishments for their crimes before they commit them. Criminals don't expect to be caught.

Back in the days when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread, bread was still frequently stolen. But never when bread was available to all, free of charge.

The state has a monopoly on violence with the understanding that it will use it.

To the absolute minimum degree necessary.

If does not, then the people will. Surely, what would be best for the criminal is to avoid vigilante justice.

What would be best would be to be able to be successful without resorting to crime at all.

And incarcerating criminals protects the public.

Does it?

These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.

That's the popular feeling.

It's contradicted by the evidence, though.

Crime isn't increasing. Reporting of crime is; Fear of crime is; Actual crime? Not so much.

 

[Hermit]

...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.

Bullshit.

The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.

 

[Derec]

Note that the data stops at 2019. Note also that the decrease since early nineties correlates with actions like the much maligned Crime Bill.

 

[Derec]

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

I know you do not want criminals punished but bribed so they don't commit more crimes. Basically pay thugs protection money.
It's a stupid idea.

 

[Derec]

Did you miss the part about diversion programs?

Those are ok for minor stuff like petty shoplifting. And also for first offenders. Not things like assaults, robberies or DUIs. And not for repeat offenders either.

 

[Derec]

This is the sort of thing that makes me suspect that their real feelings about crime victims are very different.

I do not think the wishes of most victims of crime are to have some sort of Kumbaya moment with the perp, which is what these "restorative justice" fantasies sound like. Nor do I think society is well-served by abandoning punitive measures for serious crimes.
Now, a lot of stuff is criminalized that really should not be. Minor moving violations should be classified as infractions, not misdemeanors. Things like marijuana and consensual sex work should be completely legal.
But if you rob somebody, you should go to prison. If you murder somebody, you should go to prison for a long time.

I've long thought that many right-wingers consider crime a kind of rebellion, to be ruthlessly suppressed.

Left wingers are not that different. They want so-called "restorative justice" for Mekhi Speed, but not Derek Chauvin.
Left wingers betray their opposition to long prison sentences when they protest over Jason Van Dyke being released after three years in prison.
Activists detained amid downtown protest over Jason Van Dyke release

The early release of ex-Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke, convicted of killing Laquan McDonald, has enraged several civil rights groups, many of whom protested downtown Thursday evening.

Why are they so against "restorative justice" here and insist on long custodial sentences and other "right wing" punitive measures?

Several activists breached the lobby of the Federal Building Courthouse

I thought breaching a federal government building was a big deal. Or is that only when right wingers do it?
I bet these people will not be prosecuted, or if so, will be given a slap on the wrist.

 

[Derec]

They often talk about "personal responsibility", meaning that everything bad that one suffers is one's fault.

I am not a right winger, but I do believe this is a straw man right winger attitude, not a real one.

When you do stupid things, often the consequences you suffer are your own fault. You rob a pizzeria and a customer shoots you dead, that's your fault for trying to rob a place with a gun.
But if the customer who confronted the robber was shot, that would not be his fault. If an innocent bystander were shot, that would not be his or her fault either. Both would be the fault of the robber who would be facing murder charges.

 

[Hermit]

Note that the data stops at 2019.

Derec, it is easy to support one's assertion with carefully selected small samples. Your assertion that these last few years of lax crime policies - that is to say lower rates of incarceration - results in a higher crime rate is an instance of confirmation bias at best. To put it less charitably, it is an egregious example of cherry picking. You need to apply it to the big picture to make it stick. There is no way that the data this graph, spanning 69 years, is based on make it possible, but feel free to try matching incarceration rates with crime rates. I'll wait.

Note also that the decrease since early nineties correlates with actions like the much maligned Crime Bill.

Not quite. The rate of crimes plateaued in 1991 and started dropping by 1993. The House of Representatives passed Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in August 21, 1994.

Even more telling is the fact that incarceration rates began rising sharply in 1975 while the rates of violent crimes also increased until they plateaued 16 years later.

 

[bilby]

Two wrongs don't make a right; A violent criminal suffering a long and unpleasant jail sentence isn't helping their victims.

I know you do not want criminals punished but bribed so they don't commit more crimes.

You don't "know" any such thing.

Basically pay thugs protection money.
It's a stupid idea.

If that were "basically" my position, I would agree.

But it's not.

Luckily for you, it's not unlawful to subject a strawman to assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.

 

[Trausti]

Crime isn't increasing. Reporting of crime is;

Is this a joke? So you suggest there are heaps of dead bodies that no noticed before May 2020?

 

[Trausti]

...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.

Bullshit.

The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.

Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime we got Charles Bronson movies and Escape from New York. It's the Manhattan difference between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Taxi Driver. As Derec pointed out up thread, Biden's crime bill of the early 1990's starts the trend downward. To protect the public, you put the bad guys in prison.

 

[Hermit]

...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.

Bullshit.

The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.

Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime we got Charles Bronson movies and Escape from New York. It's the Manhattan difference between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Taxi Driver. As Derec pointed out up thread, Biden's crime bill of the early 1990's starts the trend downward. To protect the public, you put the bad guys in prison.

Movies as evidence that increased incarceration rates reduce crime rates? You've got to be joking. Try to find a correlation between the two. I provided the graphs for it. Here is the second of the pair again:

 

[Trausti]

...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.

Bullshit.

The data for this graph come from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR is produced from data received from over 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. You can find them here. Good luck finding a correlation between incarceration and crime rates.

Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime we got Charles Bronson movies and Escape from New York. It's the Manhattan difference between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Taxi Driver. As Derec pointed out up thread, Biden's crime bill of the early 1990's starts the trend downward. To protect the public, you put the bad guys in prison.

Movies as evidence that increased incarceration rates reduce crime rates? You've got to be joking. Try to find a correlation between the two. I provided the graphs for it. Here is the second of the pair again:

You still seem to be forgetting about this.

 

[lpetrich]

Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime ...

Yes, the "liberal policy" of spewing lead into the air because of putting tetraethyl lead in gasoline. How Lead Caused America's Violent Crime Epidemic

 

[Trausti]

Uh, the liberal policies of the 60's and 70's produced such a shocking increase of crime ...

Yes, the "liberal policy" of spewing lead into the air because of putting tetraethyl lead in gasoline. How Lead Caused America's Violent Crime Epidemic

Shit man, even Biden referenced the liberal crime policies of the 60's in the video above.