Breakdown In Civil Order

[lostone]

There's no consistent definition of mass incarceration, but in general, Republicans like to fantasize about a society in which more or less all crimes lead to "punishment" by forced labor in the industrial prison system.

Shouldn't crime be punished? If some behavior (buying or selling weed, buying or selling sexual services) should not be punishable, it should be removed from the criminal code. But real crimes, including retail theft, should not be ignored. And even if you don't lock somebody up, community service can be construed as "forced labor". Do you want to abolish that as a possible punishment as well?
Do you think that any criminals need to be locked up? What about thieves? Should they not be punished at all? And what when they steal over and over again? Surely they should be incarcerated at that point, right? Or is that "mass incarceration"?

And what do Democrats like to fantasize about? A society where most crime goes unpunished, where thieves can just load up shopping carts with merchandise and leave in confidence that nothing will happen to them? Because, "how they gonna get their money?"

If you do not like that answer, I am not the least surprised. You asked a question and I gave you an answer. Other Dems may have other answers. None of them require your approval.

 

[Politesse]

Shouldn't crime be punished?

It's a dangerous fantasy, antithetical to civil society. We cannot catch, and punish with effective enslavement, every single crime that is committed.

And even if you don't lock somebody up, community service can be construed as "forced labor".

It might, though this seems like an absurd equivocation.

Do you think that any criminals need to be locked up?

Depends what you mean by "locked up". I don't think any society could function without some form of incarceration, but that doesn't mean a situation where 7 in every 1000 citizens is a prisoner is sustainable or desirable. Nor do I think prisoners should be stripped of any of the rights of a citizen except for those that must be abridged in order to incarcerate them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It’s hard to believe that giving Republicans more political power in California would lead to better solutions of the mental health crisis.

Having a more competitive political landscape rather than a de facto one party state would help I think.
The current Republican party in the perpetual wilderness is not good, but neither is the current Democratic party that does not have to fear being voted out of power.

Certainly the Democrats aren’t doing a good job of it here but it’s hard to see how having a powerful opposition would make them more effective in this issue. What are your thoughts here?

Competition would do them good by forcing them to engage with real issues instead of with nonsense like reparations and the like.

Only if the Republicans are offering competitive solutions that might draw voters to them. I have not been seeing that. Have you? If so, what are their propositions that might compete with those of the Democrats?

Perhaps the reason the Republicans aren’t competitive in California is that their policies don’t appeal to enough of the people who live there.

 

[ZiprHead]

Shouldn't crime be punished?

It's a dangerous fantasy, antithetical to civil society. We cannot catch, and punish with effective enslavement, every single crime that is committed.

And even if you don't lock somebody up, community service can be construed as "forced labor".

It might, though this seems like an absurd equivocation.

Do you think that any criminals need to be locked up?

Depends what you mean by "locked up". I don't think any society could function without some form of incarceration, but that doesn't mean a situation where 7 in every 1000 citizens is a prisoner is sustainable or desirable. Nor do I think prisoners should be stripped of any of the rights of a citizen except for those that must be abridged in order to incarcerate them.

I get the strong feeling that Derec wants every petty criminal to get life in prison.

 

[bilby]

I must say, that was very satisfying to watch.

I must say, there's something very disturbing about anyone who gets satisfaction from watching another person being assaulted.

 

[Politesse]

Shouldn't crime be punished?

It's a dangerous fantasy, antithetical to civil society. We cannot catch, and punish with effective enslavement, every single crime that is committed.

And even if you don't lock somebody up, community service can be construed as "forced labor".

It might, though this seems like an absurd equivocation.

Do you think that any criminals need to be locked up?

Depends what you mean by "locked up". I don't think any society could function without some form of incarceration, but that doesn't mean a situation where 7 in every 1000 citizens is a prisoner is sustainable or desirable. Nor do I think prisoners should be stripped of any of the rights of a citizen except for those that must be abridged in order to incarcerate them.

I get the strong feeling that Derec wants every petty criminal to get life in prison.

That's an implication of what he says, but I'm not sure it is a conscious one.

 

[Derec]

I get the strong feeling that Derec wants every petty criminal to get life in prison.

Your "strong feeling" is completely off base, as usual.
I already stated upthread (and not even that far upthread) that petty crimes can be handled with penalties other than incarceration, such as fines and community service. Only repeat offenders warrant incarceration for those crimes.

And life imprisonment is only warranted for really serious crimes like murder and treason, not even for most felony crimes.

I suggest you read the thread before making baseless and borderline libelous accusations.

That's an implication of what he says, but I'm not sure it is a conscious one.

Some people keep erroneously inferring where there is no implication, conscious or otherwise.

In any case, there is no implication needed. I explicitly stated what I think:

Those guilty of serious crimes, homicides, felony assaults, robberies need to be incarcerated. Those guilty of lesser crimes like non-violent theft or simple assault still need real consequences (fines, community service), and if repeat offenders, incarceration. Catch and release for things like shoplifting doesn't work as they just keep stealing over and over again and get more brazen the more they keep getting away with it.

Where you and Zipr get the ridiculous idea that I advocate for life imprisonment for petty crimes is nebulous, but it is certainly not based on anything I wrote or implied.

 

[lpetrich]

Seems to me that a good alternative to cash bail would be an ankle monitor, so it's easy to keep track of people who were arrested, while letting them lead normal lives.

That would also be good as a punishment for petty theft. Store personnel could receive alerts as to when convicted shoplifters come in, so that these personnel can kick out the shoplifters if they want, or else watch them shop. They can live normal lives, except that they won't be allowed to shop.

It's all in the spirit of these:

NTSB pushes to enforce speed limits across the country with new technology - speed limiters for cars

Drunk Driving Prevention with Voluntary Car Breathalyzer | Intoxalock - ignition interlocks

What is vehicle booting? - RISETEK Global - attaching a large, heavy metal device to a car wheel to keep the car from moving.

Boot gets the boot: City of Bend uses new 'Barnacle' tool to enforce unpaid parking tickets - KTVZ - it is a pad that is attached to a car's windshield, where it blocks the driver's view.

 

[bilby]

I get the strong feeling that Derec wants every petty criminal to get life in prison.

Your "strong feeling" is completely off base, as usual.
I already stated upthread (and not even that far upthread) that petty crimes can be handled with penalties other than incarceration, such as fines and community service. Only repeat offenders warrant incarceration for those crimes.

And life imprisonment is only warranted for really serious crimes like murder and treason, not even for most felony crimes.

I suggest you read the thread before making baseless and borderline libelous accusations.

That's an implication of what he says, but I'm not sure it is a conscious one.

Some people keep erroneously inferring where there is no implication, conscious or otherwise.

In any case, there is no implication needed. I explicitly stated what I think:

Those guilty of serious crimes, homicides, felony assaults, robberies need to be incarcerated. Those guilty of lesser crimes like non-violent theft or simple assault still need real consequences (fines, community service), and if repeat offenders, incarceration. Catch and release for things like shoplifting doesn't work as they just keep stealing over and over again and get more brazen the more they keep getting away with it.

Where you and Zipr get the ridiculous idea that I advocate for life imprisonment for petty crimes is nebulous, but it is certainly not based on anything I wrote or implied.

When you write:

Catch and release for things like shoplifting doesn't work

It's not unreasonable for your audience to infer that what you think would work would be "Catch and don't release", which implies life imprisonment "for things like shoplifting".

 

[ZiprHead]

I get the strong feeling that Derec wants every petty criminal to get life in prison.

Your "strong feeling" is completely off base, as usual.
I already stated upthread (and not even that far upthread) that petty crimes can be handled with penalties other than incarceration, such as fines and community service. Only repeat offenders warrant incarceration for those crimes.

And life imprisonment is only warranted for really serious crimes like murder and treason, not even for most felony crimes.

I suggest you read the thread before making baseless and borderline libelous accusations.

That's an implication of what he says, but I'm not sure it is a conscious one.

Some people keep erroneously inferring where there is no implication, conscious or otherwise.

In any case, there is no implication needed. I explicitly stated what I think:

Those guilty of serious crimes, homicides, felony assaults, robberies need to be incarcerated. Those guilty of lesser crimes like non-violent theft or simple assault still need real consequences (fines, community service), and if repeat offenders, incarceration. Catch and release for things like shoplifting doesn't work as they just keep stealing over and over again and get more brazen the more they keep getting away with it.

Where you and Zipr get the ridiculous idea that I advocate for life imprisonment for petty crimes is nebulous, but it is certainly not based on anything I wrote or implied.

Yet you always complain that someone with priors committing another crime should have been in jail. That doesn't square with what you are saying above. Your complaint comes down to always be in jail (life), or you think Minority Report was a documentary.

 

[Derec]

Yet you always complain that someone with priors committing another crime should have been in jail.

A lot of people are released too early. Esp. in places like California where judges order premature bulk releases because the government refuses to fund prisons.

That does not in any way mean I advocate for "life in prison for petty crimes", which was your libelous claim. Please cease and desist.

That doesn't square with what you are saying above. Your complaint comes down to always be in jail (life), or you think Minority Report was a documentary.

No it doesn't. Saying that some criminal should have been in jail or prison at the time does not mean I advocate life in prison for him or her. Or could you point to a specific statement where you believe I am advocating in that way?

 

[Derec]

It's not unreasonable for your audience to infer that what you think would work would be "Catch and don't release", which implies life imprisonment "for things like shoplifting".

Of course it is unreasonable. "Catch and release" means police catch them but have to release them immediately, no matter how many times they catch them shoplifting. Not that they are given a sentence shorter than life.

Saying that this practice is stupid does not mean I advocate life in prison for "thing like shoplifting".
NY bail reform secures release of serial shoplifter with 122 arrests
Albany really fucked up with their bail deform law.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yet you always complain that someone with priors committing another crime should have been in jail.

A lot of people are released too early. Esp. in places like California where judges order premature bulk releases because the government refuses to fund
That does not in any way mean I advocate for "life in prison for petty crimes", which was your libelous claim. Please cease and desist.

That doesn't square with what you are saying above. Your complaint comes down to always be in jail (life), or you think Minority Report was a documentary.

No it doesn't. Saying that some criminal should have been in jail or prison at the time does not mean I advocate life in prison for him or her. Or could you point to a specific statement where you believe I am advocating in that way?

No, I will not "cease and desist."

No matter how much time someone served, if they commit other crimes you always say they should been in jail. That leads to the obvious conclusion that you would support life in prison to avoid recidivism.

 

[Derec]

Seems to me that a good alternative to cash bail would be an ankle monitor, so it's easy to keep track of people who were arrested, while letting them lead normal lives.

I would agree. At least until somebody cuts their tether. Then they should go right to jail until trial.
The problem with the NY law is that for many crimes, including some assaults and arsons, judges could not impose bail or hold suspects in custody even if they keep getting arrested. Criminals quickly figured that out and some are abusing the hell out of it.

That would also be good as a punishment for petty theft.

At least for first offenders, and linked to things like community service and paying restitution to the victims. However, the more often somebody steals, the penalties should escalate, including jail time. Somebody like Jordan Neely's uncle belongs in prison, and should not be running freely.
Jordan Neely’s uncle arrested again just before hearing in credit card theft case

NTSB pushes to enforce speed limits across the country with new technology - speed limiters for cars

No, I can't agree with this at all. Esp. since speed limits have been stuck in the 70s even though safety technology greatly increased. There is no reason wide open interstates should be limited to 70 mph. Or why many streets in Atlanta should be at 25, like our horrible former mayor imposed.

Drunk Driving Prevention with Voluntary Car Breathalyzer | Intoxalock - ignition interlocks

If somebody has been convicted of DUI, that's one thing. Mandating that on all cars, like the federal government wants to do, is nanny statism.

 

[Derec]

No, I will not "cease and desist."

I.e. you insist on making false statements about me.

No matter how much time someone served, if they commit other crimes you always say they should been in jail.

Please show that this is the case with some specific statements. Esp. regarding "petty crimes".
You will not be able to do so because your accusations are pure bullshit.
Not to mention they are ad hominems. You can't argue the point, so you attack the poster. Typical fauxgressive behavior.

that leads to the obvious conclusion that you would support life in prison to avoid recidivism.

That is only obvious if you lack both reading comprehension and elementary reasoning ability.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, I will not "cease and desist."

I.e. you insist on making false statements about me.

No matter how much time someone served, if they commit other crimes you always say they should been in jail.

Please show that this is the case with some specific statements. Esp. regarding "petty crimes".
You will not be able to do so because your accusations are pure bullshit.
Not to mention they are ad hominems. You can't argue the point, so you attack the poster. Typical fauxgressive behavior.

that leads to the obvious conclusion that you would support life in prison to avoid recidivism.

That is only obvious if you lack both reading comprehension and elementary reasoning ability.

All of my comments have addressed the words you have said, not about you.

It's too bad for you that others have noticed the same things.

 

[Derec]

Only if the Republicans are offering competitive solutions that might draw voters to them. I have not been seeing that. Have you? If so, what are their propositions that might compete with those of the Democrats?

Well they do advocate more enforcement and prosecutions of crimes ignored or even excused by fauxgressives.
Like AOC defending thievery.
AOC's DIRTY DOZEN: Diaper thieves Rep defended are career criminals with violent rap sheets
And she is not the only one making excuses for thieves.
Alvin Bragg promises not to prosecute theft to establish 'racial equity' balance: 'Crime of poverty'

I am not a Republican and do not agree with many of their policies either, but the left wing of the Democratic Party has truly lost the plot on crime.

Perhaps the reason the Republicans aren’t competitive in California is that their policies don’t appeal to enough of the people who live there.

Well, duh. I always go with H.L. Mencken on this:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

 

[Derec]

All of my comments have addressed the words you have said, not about you.

You have not quoted any of my words that allegedly back up your false claim that I advocate life in prison for petty crimes.

It's too bad for you that others have noticed the same things.

More than one person can have the same delusion.
Or can you quote any actual words of mine that would support your thesis?

 

[ZiprHead]

All of my comments have addressed the words you have said, not about you.

You have not quoted any of my words that allegedly back up your false claim that I advocate life in prison for petty crimes.

It's too bad for you that others have noticed the same things.

More than one person can have the same delusion.
Or can you quote any actual words of mine that would support your thesis?

I already have.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Only if the Republicans are offering competitive solutions that might draw voters to them. I have not been seeing that. Have you? If so, what are their propositions that might compete with those of the Democrats?

Well they do advocate more enforcement and prosecutions of crimes ignored or even excused by fauxgressives.

And perhaps I’d that were the only difference. The problem is that if we focus on one issue only then we give up too much on other issues.

l

I am not a Republican and do not agree with many of their policies either, but the left wing of the Democratic Party has truly lost the plot on crime.

That may be true but I don’t see how voting Republican will help. Perhaps as a punishment for the democratic politicians but we also punish ourselves in the process by electing Republicans.

the problem with politics in general is that we can’t vote on an issue by issue basis. If you vote in a representative you have to live with all of their stances not just one of them.

Is there a better system available?