3 ms·

> Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot. Off the street and on to Riker's Island. A jail so dangerous that it has a high

> Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot. Off the street and on to Riker's Island. A jail so dangerous that it has a high likelihood of being put into federal receivership in the next year. People are safer on the street. Full stop.

oerpli 4y ago
But the streets are safer with some of those people in Riker.
- jahnu 4y ago
  Short term. What happens long term? What are the aggregate consequences of such policies to society? I don't know the answers to these questions, I would want an expert to weigh in.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > What are the aggregate consequences of such policies to society? Might ask yourself the same question about shoplifting gangs being let loose And if Riker's is a problem, then deal with that specific problem. Not prosecuting people seems to be one level removed from it. (yes, they are connected, but for example, not sending pre-trial people there could be a start)
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Probably mostly positive actually. Removing people who either have poor self control or little ability to find productive work means they don't teach those habits to their children and those around them. This does not mean the answer is executions though, as people's lives and happiness have value even if they're scumbags.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> People are safer on the street. Only if you narrowly define 'people' to mean the tiny minority of people who are thieves, and exclude the overwhelming majority of people who aren't thieves. Thieves are safer on the street but everybody else is safer with thieves off the street. You've got your priorities skewed.
- public_defender 4y ago
  This is a reasonable comment if you're talking about stabbings or murders but not shoplifting. Allowing people to steal from retail stores with impunity doesn't make anyone unsafe. Realize that I'm not arguing for impunity, just that incarceration should be off the table.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    What? If I was shopping and a gang busted in and stole a bunch of stuff, I would feel extremely unsafe..
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    Allowing people to commit any forceful or violent crime makes everyone feel less safe but also encourages the crime to escalate. > just that incarceration should be off the table. Nope. Nobody takes options off the table or the opposition adjusts. If we say we won't imprison people for X then X becomes a freebie. You see it in SF where shoplifting under $1k isn't pursued, in Vancouver where vandalism isn't pursued and you can pitch a tent up against someone's building, etc. Without involuntary incarceration you can't even force someone into detox or rehab. We should try to have better options but we've got to stop the sabotage of our system. If you can't present a better alternative to incarceration (for everyone holistically) then you can't complain. California is starting to clean up its DAs, a bit, British Columbia is cracking down. Eventually we'll have the use of our legal system again.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
That sounds insightful but it is wrong - Vancouver BC lost 3500 people on its streets last year. But there's no reason to put people in expensive and dangerous prisons when minimum security facilities will do. When you're drying people out and have the only supply around for 50km they aren't going to leave.
- public_defender 4y ago
  It could be wrong, I have no idea from a statistical prospective. You would have to analyze the people who are arrested and figure out what are the mortality rates in those narrow demographics, which is not my field. We can assume maybe 20 people will die on Riker's this year[0] our of ~5865[1], so it's not a low rate. I am mostly motivated to counter the "people better off in jail" narrative, which is horrible and pernicious. Another thing is that your hypothetical minimum security facility does not exist in NYC and is not going to be built, so we are dealing with Riker's for all pretrial confinement unless you are a child or very mentally ill. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/article/rikers-deaths-jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/rikers-deaths-jail.html [1] https://vera-institute.shinyapps.io/nyc_jail_population/ https://vera-institute.shinyapps.io/nyc_jail_population/
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > Rikers: 20 deaths/y from ~5865 population Vancouver: ~2500 deaths/y from ~25k population of injection drug users > I am mostly motivated to counter the "people better off in jail" narrative, which is horrible and pernicious And yet correct. > your hypothetical minimum security facility does not exist in NYC and is not going to be built Why would it have to be in the city? > so we are dealing with Riker's Still better than the street.
    - banannaise 4y ago
      Prison is not permanent housing. Moving someone from the street, to prison, then back to the street, takes away a lot of the resources that they may have been using to keep themselves alive. Temporary shelter may be gone. Connections to people who can help them may be gone. If someone dies on the street as a result of imprisonment, they're counted as a street death, but they're really a prison death.

oerpli 4y ago

But the streets are safer with some of those people in Riker.

jahnu 4y ago
Short term. What happens long term? What are the aggregate consequences of such policies to society? I don't know the answers to these questions, I would want an expert to weigh in.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > What are the aggregate consequences of such policies to society? Might ask yourself the same question about shoplifting gangs being let loose And if Riker's is a problem, then deal with that specific problem. Not prosecuting people seems to be one level removed from it. (yes, they are connected, but for example, not sending pre-trial people there could be a start)
- concordDance 4y ago
  Probably mostly positive actually. Removing people who either have poor self control or little ability to find productive work means they don't teach those habits to their children and those around them. This does not mean the answer is executions though, as people's lives and happiness have value even if they're scumbags.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> People are safer on the street. Only if you narrowly define 'people' to mean the tiny minority of people who are thieves, and exclude the overwhelming majority of people who aren't thieves. Thieves are safer on the street but everybody else is safer with thieves off the street. You've got your priorities skewed.

public_defender 4y ago
This is a reasonable comment if you're talking about stabbings or murders but not shoplifting. Allowing people to steal from retail stores with impunity doesn't make anyone unsafe. Realize that I'm not arguing for impunity, just that incarceration should be off the table.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  What? If I was shopping and a gang busted in and stole a bunch of stuff, I would feel extremely unsafe..
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  Allowing people to commit any forceful or violent crime makes everyone feel less safe but also encourages the crime to escalate. > just that incarceration should be off the table. Nope. Nobody takes options off the table or the opposition adjusts. If we say we won't imprison people for X then X becomes a freebie. You see it in SF where shoplifting under $1k isn't pursued, in Vancouver where vandalism isn't pursued and you can pitch a tent up against someone's building, etc. Without involuntary incarceration you can't even force someone into detox or rehab. We should try to have better options but we've got to stop the sabotage of our system. If you can't present a better alternative to incarceration (for everyone holistically) then you can't complain. California is starting to clean up its DAs, a bit, British Columbia is cracking down. Eventually we'll have the use of our legal system again.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

That sounds insightful but it is wrong - Vancouver BC lost 3500 people on its streets last year. But there's no reason to put people in expensive and dangerous prisons when minimum security facilities will do. When you're drying people out and have the only supply around for 50km they aren't going to leave.

public_defender 4y ago
It could be wrong, I have no idea from a statistical prospective. You would have to analyze the people who are arrested and figure out what are the mortality rates in those narrow demographics, which is not my field. We can assume maybe 20 people will die on Riker's this year[0] our of ~5865[1], so it's not a low rate. I am mostly motivated to counter the "people better off in jail" narrative, which is horrible and pernicious. Another thing is that your hypothetical minimum security facility does not exist in NYC and is not going to be built, so we are dealing with Riker's for all pretrial confinement unless you are a child or very mentally ill. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/article/rikers-deaths-jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/rikers-deaths-jail.html [1] https://vera-institute.shinyapps.io/nyc_jail_population/ https://vera-institute.shinyapps.io/nyc_jail_population/
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > Rikers: 20 deaths/y from ~5865 population Vancouver: ~2500 deaths/y from ~25k population of injection drug users > I am mostly motivated to counter the "people better off in jail" narrative, which is horrible and pernicious And yet correct. > your hypothetical minimum security facility does not exist in NYC and is not going to be built Why would it have to be in the city? > so we are dealing with Riker's Still better than the street.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    Prison is not permanent housing. Moving someone from the street, to prison, then back to the street, takes away a lot of the resources that they may have been using to keep themselves alive. Temporary shelter may be gone. Connections to people who can help them may be gone. If someone dies on the street as a result of imprisonment, they're counted as a street death, but they're really a prison death.