December 9, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Gannan said: Here's the memo if anyone cares to read it... https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c671e8e2727be4ad82ff1e9/t/5d44a5f79807850001acc3d9/1564780028241/The+Rachael+Rollins+Policy+Memo..pdf Her point is that non violent offenders shouldn't be thrown into prison with violent ones. She certainly seems equipped for the job. Bonus points for throwing the term white around in a derogatory manner.
December 9, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, Gannan said: Here's the memo if anyone cares to read it... https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c671e8e2727be4ad82ff1e9/t/5d44a5f79807850001acc3d9/1564780028241/The+Rachael+Rollins+Policy+Memo..pdf Her point is that non violent offenders shouldn't be thrown into prison with violent ones. so they're not issuing guidance that for example shoplifting won't be prosecuted, what they're saying is that if shoplifting is deemed to be related to a substance abuse issue or economic desperation they'll treat it one way, if it's not then they will prosecute in the traditional manner. I still think it's a bit soft in some ways, like they want to establish a pattern of behavior for some thing before proceeding. I think that's a bit too far; if someone is arrested for shoplifting and there aren't extenuating circumstances (substance abuse, stealing diapers out of desperation), it shouldn't matter if the items are recovered or if there's a pattern - they ought to be prosecuted (I mean, how do you establish a pattern otherwise?). I do get trying to make a call on each situation based on circumstances, but it puts a big onus on police and DAs to make these calls.
December 9, 20213 yr 15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: so they're not issuing guidance that for example shoplifting won't be prosecuted, what they're saying is that if shoplifting is deemed to be related to a substance abuse issue or economic desperation they'll treat it one way, if it's not then they will prosecute in the traditional manner. I still think it's a bit soft in some ways, like they want to establish a pattern of behavior for some thing before proceeding. I think that's a bit too far; if someone is arrested for shoplifting and there aren't extenuating circumstances (substance abuse, stealing diapers out of desperation), it shouldn't matter if the items are recovered or if there's a pattern - they ought to be prosecuted (I mean, how do you establish a pattern otherwise?). I do get trying to make a call on each situation based on circumstances, but it puts a big onus on police and DAs to make these calls. Shoplifting is shoplifting. We can't get into excuses for why it's OK for some people to break the law, but not others. I loathe crap like this. It's the same reason I am anti all hate crime legislation -- murder is murder. If you killed someone because of their race, or just because you are a psycho, the punishment shouldn't be different. Wait till every thief claims economic desperation...
December 9, 20213 yr 3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said: You want them to stay out of your lane? I want them to be less poor.
December 9, 20213 yr 5 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Shoplifting is shoplifting. We can't get into excuses for why it's OK for some people to break the law, but not others. I loathe crap like this. It's the same reason I am anti all hate crime legislation -- murder is murder. If you killed someone because of their race, or just because you are a psycho, the punishment shouldn't be different. Wait till every thief claims economic desperation... When it comes to murder it's more cut and dried. But if the goal is to reduce recidivism, then these are the sorts of subjective and messy policy decisions that become necessary. Being able to identify the motivation for a low-level crime and adjusting how they're treated by the criminal justice system can help prevent people from becoming career criminals. If nothing else it makes sense from a financial sense. Career criminals are far more expensive for the taxpayer than opportunistic ones.
December 9, 20213 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: When it comes to murder it's more cut and dried. But if the goal is to reduce recidivism, then these are the sorts of subjective and messy policy decisions that become necessary. Being able to identify the motivation for a low-level crime and adjusting how they're treated by the criminal justice system can help prevent people from becoming career criminals. If nothing else it makes sense from a financial sense. Career criminals are far more expensive for the taxpayer than opportunistic ones. You don't have to jail them. Issue fines, order community service, etc. But don't simply excuse crime because they have a "good reason." You don't get to steal just because your poor choices in life lead you to be destitute or addicted to drugs. Poor life choices need to have consequences.
December 9, 20213 yr 8 minutes ago, vikas83 said: You don't have to jail them. Issue fines, order community service, etc. But don't simply excuse crime because they have a "good reason." You don't get to steal just because your poor choices in life lead you to be destitute or addicted to drugs. Poor life choices need to have consequences. I don't disagree with any of that. The question is whether we can affordably tailor those consequences based on the situation in a way that reduces recidivism. They should absolutely have consequences.
December 9, 20213 yr 1/36th of Palau's population is currently incarcerated. Am I reading that right? EDIT - No, I'm not.
December 9, 20213 yr 1 minute ago, mayanh8 said: 1/36th of Palau's population is currently incarcerated. It's 522 out of 100k 100,000 / 522 = 191 or so, so one in 191. Less than 100 by my math total incarcerated for that population.
December 9, 20213 yr 26 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Still wild to me that we lead the World in prisoner rate. amerika 1st !
December 9, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: You don't have to jail them. Issue fines, order community service, etc. But don't simply excuse crime because they have a "good reason." You don't get to steal just because your poor choices in life lead you to be destitute or addicted to drugs. Poor life choices need to have consequences. But they no longer want equal opportunities, they want equity, It's about all ending up in exactly the same place, regardless of where you start from, or how much individual effort you put into life. Life should end up fair and balanced for all. Or so I am told.
December 9, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Still wild to me that we lead the World in prisoner rate. And yet we still have an under incarceration problem in this country. Wild.
December 9, 20213 yr 7 hours ago, Gannan said: The entire country was founded on the principle of property rights. That's why we have a 5th amendment and require proper compensation when the government exercises its power to confiscate private property.
December 9, 20213 yr 5 hours ago, vikas83 said: You don't have to jail them. Issue fines, order community service, etc. But don't simply excuse crime because they have a "good reason." You don't get to steal just because your poor choices in life lead you to be destitute or addicted to drugs. Poor life choices need to have consequences. I didn’t see anything about no penalties, just not prison with violent criminals. There’s a school of thought that if you take non violent offenders and throw them in with hardened violent criminals, we just produce more violent criminals. I realize this is far too nuanced for the likes of KZ but that was my understanding of it.
December 9, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Procus said: That's why we have a 5th amendment and require proper compensation when the government exercises its power to confiscate private property. So you trust the same government you complain is incompetent and hopelessly corrupt to treat you fairly when it comes to compensation? Wow.
December 10, 20213 yr 8 hours ago, Ipiggles said: But they no longer want equal opportunities, they want equity, It's about all ending up in exactly the same place, regardless of where you start from, or how much individual effort you put into life. Life should end up fair and balanced for all. Or so I am told. You should stop listening to those people.
December 10, 20213 yr 4 hours ago, Gannan said: So you trust the same government you complain is incompetent and hopelessly corrupt to treat you fairly when it comes to compensation? Wow. The message, or in this case, the policy is not what republicans question. They only care who is telling them. They are a cult of propaganda.
December 10, 20213 yr 9 hours ago, Gannan said: So you trust the same government you complain is incompetent and hopelessly corrupt to treat you fairly when it comes to compensation? Wow. That's what the court system is for. As I said before, if you don't like Eminent Domain, don't drive - because practically all highways are assembled with land taken from private citizens
December 10, 20213 yr 4 hours ago, Procus said: That's what the court system is for. As I said before, if you don't like Eminent Domain, don't drive - because practically all highways are assembled with land taken from private citizens if you don't like a liberal president, don't live here. see how flawed your logic is ?
December 10, 20213 yr 13 minutes ago, The_Omega said: I see things are going swimingly, it's just Business as usual at the ol' WH.
Create an account or sign in to comment