Breakdown In Civil Order

[TSwizzle]

Rising income inequality is increasingly making it difficult for more working people to get by.

Rising inflation isn't helping.

 

[steve_bank]

Rising income inequality is increasingly making it difficult for more working people to get by.

Rising inflation isn't helping.

Inflation, growth, recession, boon, bust are part of the economic system cycles. It is inherent in free market economics.

At some point will people accept that when there is plenty of food and resources to provide housing? Historically I would say future generations will not.

Why work wen it is uncertain what you build for yourself will fall apart? When people stop beliving than civil rder breaks down. We sawt during the VN War and blacks saying enough is enough and rioted in the 60s. Kent State.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rising income inequality is increasingly making it difficult for more working people to get by.

Rising inflation isn't helping.

Inflation? In California? You bring up inflation?! Housing is the problem. People can't afford homes in California... not because of generic inflation.

 

[TSwizzle]

Rising income inequality is increasingly making it difficult for more working people to get by.

Rising inflation isn't helping.

Inflation? In California? You bring up inflation?!

Yes, what of it?

Housing is the problem.

The cost of housing is one problem among many in California and I'm sure it is a problem in many other states. It is not unique to California. There are affordable homes in California in some areas.

People can't afford homes in California...

Many people do afford homes. California is very expensive and one needs to take that into consideration before you move here. I guess a lot of people have decided to move out of California and I plan on moving out.

not because of generic inflation.

Inflation increases the cost of many things, not just housing. The price of gas has shot up, people who commute have to pay double in gas than what they used to. Energy prices have gone up, food prices have gone up. I'm sure many people are feeling the pinch. "making it difficult for more working people to get by."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rising income inequality is increasingly making it difficult for more working people to get by.

Rising inflation isn't helping.

Inflation? In California? You bring up inflation?!

Yes, what of it?

It isn't particularly accurate.

Housing is the problem.

The cost of housing is one problem among many in California and I'm sure it is a problem in many other states. It is not unique to California. There are affordable homes in California in some areas.

Those areas tend to be more flammable than the others.

The price of gas has shot up, people who commute have to pay double in gas than what they used to. Energy prices have gone up, food prices have gone up. I'm sure many people are feeling the pinch. "making it difficult for more working people to get by."

These people aren't suddenly homeless because the cost of food went up 10% or gasoline went up suddenly.

 

[TSwizzle]

Rising income inequality is increasingly making it difficult for more working people to get by.

Rising inflation isn't helping.

Inflation? In California? You bring up inflation?!

Yes, what of it?

It isn't particularly accurate.

Not accurate? Then you must not think that rising inflation is having an effect on people's ability to get by.

Housing is the problem.

The cost of housing is one problem among many in California and I'm sure it is a problem in many other states. It is not unique to California. There are affordable homes in California in some areas.

Those areas tend to be more flammable than the others.

Malibu is very, very expensive and experiences wildfires every year. And floods. But there are affordable homes dotted around California, even LA County.

 

[Hermit]

Inflation increases the cost of many things, not just housing. The price of gas has shot up, people who commute have to pay double in gas than what they used to. Energy prices have gone up, food prices have gone up. I'm sure many people are feeling the pinch. "making it difficult for more working people to get by."

That describes exactly what is happening here in Australia. I'd very much like to find out how Governor Newsom's policies managed to affect an entire continent on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. And probably in Europe.

 

[Derec]

It's almost as though marginalising people and abandoning them to make their way unassisted leaves them with no respect whatsoever for their wealthy and successful neighbours, law, or society.

Why do you think California does not have assistance for those struggling to make ends meet?

At some point we need to stop blaming society for everything. Those people made their choices to attack people or steal from people.

Obviously, you haven't yet been sufficiently cruel to them to make them want to support the cruelty of your system.

Cruel? If anything, California and esp. counties like LA are way too lenient since they hardly ever prosecute crimes like these.

 

[Derec]

The entire concept of jail as the main option for dealing with convicted criminals is absurd,

Maybe we should go back to exiling them to Australia.

Seriously though, jail should not be the go-to sentence for many crimes. Community service is an alternative.
But for more serious misdemeanors and esp. for repeat offenders, county jail is the right place.
Say for example shoplifting. First offense, fine and some community service is in order. Perp does it again, jail time is appropriate.
Burglary though, even if charged as misdemeanor and not felony, should result in jail time for a first offense, because it is more serious.

 

[steve_bank]

The entire concept of jail as the main option for dealing with convicted criminals is absurd,

Maybe we should go back to exiling them to Australia.

Seriously though, jail should not be the go-to sentence for many crimes. Community service is an alternative.
But for more serious misdemeanors and esp. for repeat offenders, county jail is the right place.
Say for example shoplifting. First offense, fine and some community service is in order. Perp does it again, jail time is appropriate.
Burglary though, even if charged as misdemeanor and not felony, should result in jail time for a first offense, because it is more serious.

We are seeing the effect of that judicial philosophy in Seattle. Some criminals respnd to diversion programs, in general It does not work.

A judicial revolving door for violent offenders on down.

People arrested for shoplifting are released and go stel from the same store. Shop lifting has gone up. Some stores now have security gurads.

 

[Oleg]

You can tell a great deal about a society from the way it treats it's convicts.

So true. An enlighted society would let this guy go. He's the real victim.

 

[laughing dog]

You can tell a great deal about a society from the way it treats it's convicts.

So true. An enlighted society would let this guy go. He's the real victim.

The purpose of that non-sequitur is?

 

[Oleg]

You can tell a great deal about a society from the way it treats it's convicts.

So true. An enlighted society would let this guy go. He's the real victim.

The purpose of that non-sequitur is?

Do we say no bail? No prision? Or do we say he's a menace to society and should be locked up? So often these discussion are in the abstract. Let's make it real. Progressives, defend your position.

 

[Oleg]

Just some misunderstood yutes. Society is much better off with them free than locked up. Can I get an Amen!?

 

[bilby]

I didn't suggest that criminals should be free. I suggested that they should be treated well, rather than being abused and brutalised.

US prison conditions are vile, and you would struggle to devise a punishment less effective at reducing recidivism.

Prisoners who are better people on their release than they were when they went inside is the goal.

Prisoners who are merely unchanged (but older) would represent a failure of the system.

But the US system seems well suited to encourage people to become more antisocial, more violent, and more cruel; While simultaneously giving them an education in how to be a more effective criminal, and branding them with a stigma that makes earning a legitimate living effectively impossible.

So, to reiterate, you can tell a great deal about a society from the way it treats it's convicts.

One thing it tells us about the US is that it's a harsh and uncaring nation that would rather apply vengeance against people who commit crimes, than attempt to make them better members of society.

 

[Jarhyn]

I didn't suggest that criminals should be free. I suggested that they should be treated well, rather than being abused and brutalised.

US prison conditions are vile, and you would struggle to devise a punishment less effective at reducing recidivism.

Prisoners who are better people on their release than they were when they went inside is the goal.

Prisoners who are merely unchanged (but older) would represent a failure of the system.

But the US system seems well suited to encourage people to become more antisocial, more violent, and more cruel; While simultaneously giving them an education in how to be a more effective criminal, and branding them with a stigma that makes earning a legitimate living effectively impossible.

So, to reiterate, you can tell a great deal about a society from the way it treats it's convicts.

One thing it tells us about the US is that it's a harsh and uncaring nation that would rather apply vengeance against people who commit crimes, than attempt to make them better members of society.

I think the phrase you are seeking is "false dichotomy".

It is not a binary choice between people violating each other on the streets and harshly torturing criminals as you point out.

The way Oleg would tell it though, it's totally binary.

It tells us about the conservatives of the US being harsh and uncaring and would rather apply vengeance against people who commit crimes, than attempt to make them better members of society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I want to thank Oleg for demonstrating that this thing called "crime" exists. I mean, yes, they are exaggerating crime rates in order to present a narrative of America under siege from criminals... and I'm not certain why this fallacious presentation is made.

The entire concept of jail as the main option for dealing with convicted criminals is absurd,

Maybe we should go back to exiling them to Australia.

Seriously though, jail should not be the go-to sentence for many crimes. Community service is an alternative.
But for more serious misdemeanors and esp. for repeat offenders, county jail is the right place.
Say for example shoplifting. First offense, fine and some community service is in order. Perp does it again, jail time is appropriate.

Why the second time? Isn't a potential benefit of "community service" to better the community, and attempt to reconnect them with it.

Jail needs to be reserved for people that threaten society. Someone is habitually breaking the law, their crimes need to be addressed by a Judge, not a bunch of people that get erections over jail terms.

Burglary though, even if charged as misdemeanor and not felony, should result in jail time for a first offense, because it is more serious.

Why is jail time required. Weeks to months of continuous community service would seem more beneficial than months in a jail cell where the community gets just a bill and no possible sense of rehabilitation.

 

[Derec]

Arrestees are innocent in law until convicted; It is therefore incumbent upon the system to ensure that trials occur without delay, so that those who are ultimately acquitted are freed from the burden of suspicion as soon as possible, and so that those who are ultimately convicted are removed from the opportunity to reoffend as soon as possible.

Achieving the latter by imprisonment of lawfully innocent citizens is a fucking terrible idea. Making those citizens pay money for their freedom is an even worse idea.

You do not have pretrial detention in Australia? All charged suspects are released on their own recognizance until trial?
I doubt that very much.

The NY bail reform's aim was to lessen the burden of bail. The problem is that it was written by idiots up in Albany. It was meant to apply to minor crimes, but defined that category so broadly that even arson is eligible for mandatory no-bail releases. It also tied the hands of judges who could not seek bail or pretrial detention for even repeat offenders. So you had cases where the same perp would commit crimes over and over again, and get one desk appearance ticket after another.
At some point judges should be able to hold such people until trial.

Your entire legal system, from policing, through arrest, bail, and trial, to the penalties and conditions imposed on convicts, is a shitty mess of compromises, held together with bandaid remedies for sucking chest wound scale injustices.

All legal systems, or at least most of them, are a shitty mess of compromises. What you want is to lean way to far in favor of criminals, at the expense of regular people who are the victims of the people you want to tilt the playing field in favor of.

If you started from scratch trying to design a system that minimised crime, minimised recidivism, and minimised the consequences of false accusations, you wouldn't end up with a system much like anything that exists today.

You also would not end up with anything like the pro-criminal system you keep advocating.

The entire concept of jail as the main option for dealing with convicted criminals is absurd, particularly given the huge gulf between the concept of depriving someone of their liberty; and the reality of depriving them of liberty, dignity, safety, enfranchisement, protection from forced labour, and any effective redress of issues.

Prison is for felonies. Many misdemeanors are punishable by a stay in county jail.
I do not know if the Aussie nomenclature is similar, although you probably spell it gaol or something.

I agree with you that there are many people in jails and prisons who do not belong there. At the same time, there are people who commit serious crimes who should be in prison for longer than they are. There have been cases of people convicted for e.g. armed robbery who are released after spending ridiculously short time locked up.

Example: A youth’s second chance, another family’s tragedy

An innocent man died because of that judge's bleeding heart.

You can tell a great deal about a society from the way it treats it's convicts.

And a society can err on both sides here. Often the same society can err on both sides for different crimes (e.g. marijuana possession or sex work vs. robberies)

 

[Patooka]

You do not have pretrial detention in Australia?

In before Bilby, pretrial detention is the exception, not the rule. America is so fucking gaga over it prison and jail have separate fucking meanings.

 

[Derec]

I want to thank Oleg for demonstrating that this thing called "crime" exists. I mean, yes, they are exaggerating crime rates in order to present a narrative of America under siege from criminals... and I'm not certain why this fallacious presentation is made.

Who is exaggerating crime rates? If anything, when lefty DAs like Gascon, Bragg et al refuse to prosecute certain crimes, the reporting of those crimes is likely to go down. That does not mean those crimes do not happen.

Why the second time? Isn't a potential benefit of "community service" to better the community, and attempt to reconnect them with it.

Because the perp did not take advantage of the lenient sentence the first time, and decided to do it again.
Repeat offenders get harsher sentences than first offenders for a good reason.

Jail needs to be reserved for people that threaten society. Someone is habitually breaking the law, their crimes need to be addressed by a Judge, not a bunch of people that get erections over jail terms.

I do agree that it is the judge who should impose the sentence. And that sentence should be more serious if somebody is a repeat offender.

Why is jail time required. Weeks to months of continuous community service would seem more beneficial than months in a jail cell where the community gets just a bill and no possible sense of rehabilitation.

Because the crime of burglary is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence. Burglars invade somebody's home in order to steal from residents. That invasion of one's home should not be taken lightly.