7 ms·

The people who suffer most from those in charge tolerating crime are the poor and less privileged -- through direct crime, and negative effects on their communi

The people who suffer most from those in charge tolerating crime are the poor and less privileged -- through direct crime, and negative effects on their communities -- as well as especially children (problems that affect families always affect kids the worst). What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand is that the actions/policies they promote, believing that they're reducing the stigma or making it more "equitable" by reducing the penalties for crime, end up hurting most people instead of solving the problem. They get to feel better that they didn't lock up so many people of color (to use today's fad grouping), but the greater community who are poor and less privileged are actually the ones paying for the crimes now being overlooked/ignored. The rich can/will move away and leave these places to suffer on their own. The poor, who most rely on government to protect them, watch as their concerns and safety get swept under the rug of feel-good defund-the-police policies as those in charge have no idea (or actively ignore) what they've incentivized.

wolverine876 5y ago
> What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand ... Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. > who think they mean well You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.
- kepler1 5y ago
  wolverine876 >>Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. >>You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies. Nope. You in fact are probably among those who believe they are the "holder of Truth" in how much you believe in your exaggerated position and its importance. Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. Many are poor. And more often than not, need and value the protection of police and government for their communities. You say you listened to the communities, but you actually just decided to hear the loudest/most vocal people who latched on to some headline-grabbing idea that doesn't represent the bulk of what daily life is in this country. And you overexaggerate the proportion of people of color who are experiencing these issues versus living normal, striving, lives. Of course you are -- only that story fits your desire to create disproportionate attention to the issue. And you took that idea and thought that using it to upend the systems of law would benefit some small symbolic group. Yes there are some incidents of police brutality and misconduct, but you would no more say that that should be grounds to dismantle a system of law any more than you would say that a few bad apples should be used to prejudge a people. I don't claim to speak on behalf of any community. You certainly do. The dismantling of justice systems / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. And your last sentence just illustrates the blinders you have on to evidence of increased crime in places with newly-tolerant anti-policing policies. Don't be so self-righteous and confident in your position because you think you're morally correct.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    > The dismantling / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. The funny thing here is that your post is considerably more self-righteous, and it's also hypocritical. You're saying that it's not conducive to society to overlook crime, while ignoring the fact that police are committing crimes with essentially no repercussions. We don't even have requirements to track the crimes the police commit. This point is especially funny when you consider that crime rates are at historic lows, nationwide, but we still have the largest per-capita number of prisoners in the world.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    More fabrications about me and my thinking, but no evidence of anything. > Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. You are equating abuse by law enforcement with criminality, which is the fundamental problem - privileged people think it only happens to criminals. You are right that they are law-abiding, and yet they still suffer abuse - that is the great problem of our society for generations, they've been saying it for generations, and people like you have ignored them for generations. I actually talk to people, not watch Fox News (or any other nonsense). If you think these issues aren't widespread, you live in a priviledged bubble. Go out. Get on the bus. Talk to people who actually live the experiences.
- mc32 5y ago
  People have to understand that people are conflicted. They desire things that are impossible. They want justice, they want peace, but they don't want to accept that you need force to achieve a balance. There is no utopia. Japan is "peaceful" and it's near homogenous (at least psychologically --and that's what matters) so the racism bugaboo doesn't rear its head, never the less to achieve this stasis the justice system is even worse than the beleaguered US justice system. So after a while, people forgo their ideals and revert to the hard reality and elect someone like a Duterte who promised to clean up and he did -and but for the affected families, for the most part took the bargain. People will put up with only so much insecurity. Most tyrannies don't put up with petty crimes either because petty crimes can move people to seek change.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > They desire things that are impossible. You say it's impossible, but do you have evidence to support that? > elect someone like a Duterte You're suggesting that for the United States? You think that was a success? > People will put up with only so much insecurity. Crime rates are low and dropping. Someone is working hard to create a sense of insecurity. Why? Isn't that the biggest threat?
klyrs 5y ago
The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Why do you think more, stricter punishment is the answer?
- mc32 5y ago
  A lot of that was due to drug consumption "crimes;" there has been a reevaluation of the outcome of that and we've gone away from that. That said, anti-social crime should have deterrents and consequences.
  - cameldrv 5y ago
    That’s why some drugs are illegal. Addiction causes many people to generally destroy their lives and many of those to resort to crime.
    - mc32 5y ago
      A better option would be the ability to "cure" people of addiction --we can't. It's hard work for most people and we don't have magic cure pills. I am for criminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but not the consumption. Criminalizing consumption is lose-lose. Recreational drugs like Alcohol and MJ and others, as long as they are regulated and not highly addictive for the majority of the population, I don't think we'd benefit from criminalizing (see Prohibition and War on Drugs results). We would benefit more from programs to treat addition as ineffectual as they are.
    - scollet 5y ago
      This doesn't explain a lot. Alcoholism and gambling both fit the bill. Even for those, adequate counseling and social support don't exist, practically, in the US. This is the infrastructure of society that bleeds when pressed, and many people could do with legal variants, or safe spaces to confront addiction.
      - cameldrv 5y ago
        Alcohol and gambling are both heavily regulated. Gambling was illegal in almost all of the U.S. until about 50 years ago, and it has only recently become widespread. Alcohol was entirely banned for a number of years and even today there are counties where you can’t buy alcohol. Even where you can there are many restrictions on hours of sale, licensing, etc.
ryan_lane 5y ago
I wonder why your thought process goes towards locking people up more to help poor people, rather than to help poor people not be poor. Countries with less crime tend to have less poverty. If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Putting people into prison makes them (and their families) poorer. Should we put violent criminals into prison? Yes. Should we put shoplifters into prison? Probably not. Most of the sentencing and prosecution changes that have been coming through are for crimes that are generally considered minor: shoplifting, drug possession, etc. The reason you believe otherwise is because of police propaganda. A lot of their crime numbers are linked to these arrests, because these arrests are easy, safe, and require little to no investigation. The drug arrests tend to be associated with their profit centers too (traffic stops). They have a strong incentive to lie to you about these changes, because their jobs are tied to it.
- kepler1 5y ago
  I think your sense of reasonable argument has gone out the window, so I'm not likely to spend much more time answering here. I support helping people out of poverty. However, it will take decades. In the meantime, no more prosecuting of minor crimes, huh? That's sure to send some great signals to people who might be tempted to commit crimes. And to the people who obey laws. How about people who shoplift try not shoplifting, to help avoid making their families poorer by staying out of prison for those and other crimes? Who knows whether you understand this idea. It seems that you rather sympathize with someone who commits crime rather than the 100x people in the same community who obey the laws and have to pay to clean up after that crime. And you occupy some reverse-logic-world where people committing crimes are being treated to some perverse injustice by being caught for those crimes. It's an insult to the law-abiding poor person who pays in full for their purchases that you seem to care more about the shoplifter. That you're so eager to let the person jumping the turnstile not be punished, while the elderly pensioner scrimps and saves to pay her subway fare dutifully. Watch out for the backlash against what you think your policies are doing. And btw I don't consume propaganda or get swayed by messaging. I don't believe what people say, of either side. I believe what they do.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

> What policymakers and people who think they mean well need to understand ... Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. > who think they mean well You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies.

kepler1 5y ago
wolverine876 >>Perhaps you are the one who needs to understand. What makes you the holder of Truth? The people you claim to speak for - why are you speaking for anyone? - they vote for these policies, overwhelmingly. They objected for generations to the brutal oppression of police and will tell you, if you let them speak for themselves, that police make them feel less safe. They will tell you that bail ruined lives of innocent people by keeping them imprisoned, costing people jobs, making them burdens on their communities. >>You can make up characterizations, but the policies are based on, finally, listening to people in those communities. Further, there is no evidence connecting the policies with crime increases. Crime has remained low overall, and the increase in gun crime and homicide has been spread across the country, regardless of local policies. Nope. You in fact are probably among those who believe they are the "holder of Truth" in how much you believe in your exaggerated position and its importance. Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. Many are poor. And more often than not, need and value the protection of police and government for their communities. You say you listened to the communities, but you actually just decided to hear the loudest/most vocal people who latched on to some headline-grabbing idea that doesn't represent the bulk of what daily life is in this country. And you overexaggerate the proportion of people of color who are experiencing these issues versus living normal, striving, lives. Of course you are -- only that story fits your desire to create disproportionate attention to the issue. And you took that idea and thought that using it to upend the systems of law would benefit some small symbolic group. Yes there are some incidents of police brutality and misconduct, but you would no more say that that should be grounds to dismantle a system of law any more than you would say that a few bad apples should be used to prejudge a people. I don't claim to speak on behalf of any community. You certainly do. The dismantling of justice systems / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. And your last sentence just illustrates the blinders you have on to evidence of increased crime in places with newly-tolerant anti-policing policies. Don't be so self-righteous and confident in your position because you think you're morally correct.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  > The dismantling / overlooking of crime is not conducive to a good society. The funny thing here is that your post is considerably more self-righteous, and it's also hypocritical. You're saying that it's not conducive to society to overlook crime, while ignoring the fact that police are committing crimes with essentially no repercussions. We don't even have requirements to track the crimes the police commit. This point is especially funny when you consider that crime rates are at historic lows, nationwide, but we still have the largest per-capita number of prisoners in the world.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  More fabrications about me and my thinking, but no evidence of anything. > Most people of color are not being brutalized by police. Most are not being downtrodden and being imprisoned unjustly. Quite to the contrary, most in this country are law abiding citizens making their way up the economic and social ladder. You are equating abuse by law enforcement with criminality, which is the fundamental problem - privileged people think it only happens to criminals. You are right that they are law-abiding, and yet they still suffer abuse - that is the great problem of our society for generations, they've been saying it for generations, and people like you have ignored them for generations. I actually talk to people, not watch Fox News (or any other nonsense). If you think these issues aren't widespread, you live in a priviledged bubble. Go out. Get on the bus. Talk to people who actually live the experiences.
mc32 5y ago
People have to understand that people are conflicted. They desire things that are impossible. They want justice, they want peace, but they don't want to accept that you need force to achieve a balance. There is no utopia. Japan is "peaceful" and it's near homogenous (at least psychologically --and that's what matters) so the racism bugaboo doesn't rear its head, never the less to achieve this stasis the justice system is even worse than the beleaguered US justice system. So after a while, people forgo their ideals and revert to the hard reality and elect someone like a Duterte who promised to clean up and he did -and but for the affected families, for the most part took the bargain. People will put up with only so much insecurity. Most tyrannies don't put up with petty crimes either because petty crimes can move people to seek change.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > They desire things that are impossible. You say it's impossible, but do you have evidence to support that? > elect someone like a Duterte You're suggesting that for the United States? You think that was a success? > People will put up with only so much insecurity. Crime rates are low and dropping. Someone is working hard to create a sense of insecurity. Why? Isn't that the biggest threat?

klyrs 5y ago

The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Why do you think more, stricter punishment is the answer?

mc32 5y ago
A lot of that was due to drug consumption "crimes;" there has been a reevaluation of the outcome of that and we've gone away from that. That said, anti-social crime should have deterrents and consequences.
- cameldrv 5y ago
  That’s why some drugs are illegal. Addiction causes many people to generally destroy their lives and many of those to resort to crime.
  - mc32 5y ago
    A better option would be the ability to "cure" people of addiction --we can't. It's hard work for most people and we don't have magic cure pills. I am for criminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but not the consumption. Criminalizing consumption is lose-lose. Recreational drugs like Alcohol and MJ and others, as long as they are regulated and not highly addictive for the majority of the population, I don't think we'd benefit from criminalizing (see Prohibition and War on Drugs results). We would benefit more from programs to treat addition as ineffectual as they are.
  - scollet 5y ago
    This doesn't explain a lot. Alcoholism and gambling both fit the bill. Even for those, adequate counseling and social support don't exist, practically, in the US. This is the infrastructure of society that bleeds when pressed, and many people could do with legal variants, or safe spaces to confront addiction.
    - cameldrv 5y ago
      Alcohol and gambling are both heavily regulated. Gambling was illegal in almost all of the U.S. until about 50 years ago, and it has only recently become widespread. Alcohol was entirely banned for a number of years and even today there are counties where you can’t buy alcohol. Even where you can there are many restrictions on hours of sale, licensing, etc.

ryan_lane 5y ago

I wonder why your thought process goes towards locking people up more to help poor people, rather than to help poor people not be poor. Countries with less crime tend to have less poverty. If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Putting people into prison makes them (and their families) poorer. Should we put violent criminals into prison? Yes. Should we put shoplifters into prison? Probably not. Most of the sentencing and prosecution changes that have been coming through are for crimes that are generally considered minor: shoplifting, drug possession, etc. The reason you believe otherwise is because of police propaganda. A lot of their crime numbers are linked to these arrests, because these arrests are easy, safe, and require little to no investigation. The drug arrests tend to be associated with their profit centers too (traffic stops). They have a strong incentive to lie to you about these changes, because their jobs are tied to it.

kepler1 5y ago
I think your sense of reasonable argument has gone out the window, so I'm not likely to spend much more time answering here. I support helping people out of poverty. However, it will take decades. In the meantime, no more prosecuting of minor crimes, huh? That's sure to send some great signals to people who might be tempted to commit crimes. And to the people who obey laws. How about people who shoplift try not shoplifting, to help avoid making their families poorer by staying out of prison for those and other crimes? Who knows whether you understand this idea. It seems that you rather sympathize with someone who commits crime rather than the 100x people in the same community who obey the laws and have to pay to clean up after that crime. And you occupy some reverse-logic-world where people committing crimes are being treated to some perverse injustice by being caught for those crimes. It's an insult to the law-abiding poor person who pays in full for their purchases that you seem to care more about the shoplifter. That you're so eager to let the person jumping the turnstile not be punished, while the elderly pensioner scrimps and saves to pay her subway fare dutifully. Watch out for the backlash against what you think your policies are doing. And btw I don't consume propaganda or get swayed by messaging. I don't believe what people say, of either side. I believe what they do.
- ryan_lane 5y ago