4 ms·

so what do you propose as a solution

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Prosecuting petty crime with a (legitimate, funded, and measured effectiveness) diversion path for anyone who isn’t an egregious reoffender. “Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!” Is not a successful strategy. Three strikes is excessively punitive, but neither does allowing rampant crime to continue unabated.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Three strikes is excessively punitive" Maybe. It can be pretty easy to commit crimes, but in general felonies are tougher to be accidental (although not impossible). The three strikes law has to do with felonies. If 2 stints in prison haven't deterred them from committing serious crimes, then it's likely they won't change (although a side note is that the current system could be enhanced in terms of rehabilitation efficacy - sort of a separate topic though). Edit: why so many downvotes?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - slg 5y ago
    >If 2 stints in prison haven't deterred them from committing serious crimes You are so close here. Maybe if the 2 stints in prison haven't deterred their crime it means that punishment isn't much of a deterrent and therefore we shouldn't blame decreased punishment for an increase in crime.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That's a stretch. If it's 3 strikes, then they're in for life (if they shoplift about $1k) and no longer committing the crime. Also, just because it didn't work for those repeat offenders, doesn't mean that the threat of punishment isn't a deterrent to a potential offender. For example, as a kid you likely listened to your parents based on their threat of punishment. In reality, they have very little power and relatively minor punishments (with CPS getting involved).
giantg2 5y ago
I'm not sure there's a single solution. On one hand we need to ensure people feel like a part of the system and have a chance at a decent job. If you know you don't have a chance then your more likely to act outside the acceptable system. That can help on the prevention side. On the other side, it's pretty bad that police can't pursue thieves. Perhaps allowing law enforcement to pursue criminals and store/property owners to detain criminals. So positive encouragement with feeling part of system and hope for a better life, with negative reinforcement of catching and prosecuting offenders (and not having criminal/civil policies that imped that).

Prosecuting petty crime with a (legitimate, funded, and measured effectiveness) diversion path for anyone who isn’t an egregious reoffender. “Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!” Is not a successful strategy. Three strikes is excessively punitive, but neither does allowing rampant crime to continue unabated.

giantg2 5y ago
"Three strikes is excessively punitive" Maybe. It can be pretty easy to commit crimes, but in general felonies are tougher to be accidental (although not impossible). The three strikes law has to do with felonies. If 2 stints in prison haven't deterred them from committing serious crimes, then it's likely they won't change (although a side note is that the current system could be enhanced in terms of rehabilitation efficacy - sort of a separate topic though). Edit: why so many downvotes?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- slg 5y ago
  >If 2 stints in prison haven't deterred them from committing serious crimes You are so close here. Maybe if the 2 stints in prison haven't deterred their crime it means that punishment isn't much of a deterrent and therefore we shouldn't blame decreased punishment for an increase in crime.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's a stretch. If it's 3 strikes, then they're in for life (if they shoplift about $1k) and no longer committing the crime. Also, just because it didn't work for those repeat offenders, doesn't mean that the threat of punishment isn't a deterrent to a potential offender. For example, as a kid you likely listened to your parents based on their threat of punishment. In reality, they have very little power and relatively minor punishments (with CPS getting involved).

giantg2 5y ago

I'm not sure there's a single solution. On one hand we need to ensure people feel like a part of the system and have a chance at a decent job. If you know you don't have a chance then your more likely to act outside the acceptable system. That can help on the prevention side. On the other side, it's pretty bad that police can't pursue thieves. Perhaps allowing law enforcement to pursue criminals and store/property owners to detain criminals. So positive encouragement with feeling part of system and hope for a better life, with negative reinforcement of catching and prosecuting offenders (and not having criminal/civil policies that imped that).