Old Thread, New Title: Maybe dems should focus on getting tough on crime vs relying on karma!!!!

[pmv]

We can fully provide for everyone's basic needs—food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. If we stop coddling the oligarchs we can afford to do all that along with infrastructure and UBI. After that, the only crime we'd need to deal with would be psychologically damaged people, because what other incentive is there to do crime?

For a start there _are_ those psychologically damaged people, and they will probably always exist, and some of them maybe can't be fixed, because we don't really understand how to do so.
And secondly there clearly are other incentives to be criminal, hence the significant number of self-serving and amoral people you find among the most powerful and privileged classes who have never had any problems with those basic needs. Those oligarchs themselves, for example.

I don't believe you'll ever get the number of criminals down to zero purely by means of improvements in social conditions, but I do think you can greatly reduce the number that way. It's a stochastic thing, people have free will, but the conditions are going to influence what choices, statistically, people tend to make.

And there's also the question of what you do in the meantime, while trying to address those basic needs.

I can flip between seeing it either way.

Sometimes it seems to me that really elite liberals take a complacent view of predatory criminals because they themselves tend to live in neighbourhoods not affected by them, being insulated by wealth. I even wonder if sometimes they don't half admire the criminals, because they remind them of their own ancestors, whose criminal entrepreneuralism is what made the elites elite in the first place. Many of the big land-owning families got that way because their great-great-great-grandparents were hard-men, who became tribal chiefs because of their aptitude for psychopathic violence.

That's why the elite sometimes seem to be softer on crime than they are on sickness and unemployment among the poor - imposing harsher sanctions on poor people in the latter categories than the former, because, I guess, they see the criminals as at least having some 'get up and go'. A gangster is often just an entrepreneur who didn't go to a good enough school.

And actual poor people seem to have quite contradictory attitudes to crime and law-and-order. Because on the one hand they have to live next door to the predatory criminals and get preyed on by them, but on the other they see their own family members being tempted to be drawn into crime, becuase of the sheer toughness of existence in those communities. Improving conditions and meeting basic needs is definitely a huge part of addressing crime, but I don't think it's the entirety of it.

 

[brycejones]

Did anyone else see those goal posts just whiz by?

They were going so fast I couldn’t really see them.

 

[nakedfrog]

Degrees of severity:

teenager calls someone a swear word.. minor altercation

teenager assaults someone violently.. more than a minor altercation but most of the time no one goes to jail..

teenager steals a car, drives 100 mph ramming and causing a car crash where people die.. should that be brushed aside since it's a teen too?

More violent crimes need harsher penalties.

You sure as hell don't wanna know what I think of carjackers who steal cars with kids inside the car.

Stop equating all car thefts with carjacking, they're not the same thing.

 

[skyking]

They were going so fast I couldn’t really see them.

Red shift + doppler effect from the whoooosh

 

[NWRMidnight]

Taj territory. Oh shut the fuck up.

You've got your head up your fucking ass that if anyone disagrees with you.. they're automatically as bad as Taj.

We LOST 4 BLUE DISTRICTS because of YOUR IGNORANCE and pretty much the DEMS IGNORANCE.. and not because people were brainwashed by red propaganda.. instead they were pushed to their fucking limits on CRIME and LAWLESSNESS by Dems not being tough on crime.

I happen to remember when I was young.. New York was always liberal but it swung red for a piece of shit like Reagan.

New Jersey is already within 5 points just about every cycle.

PA is within 5 and it swung for a complete piece of shit like Trump.

Why the hell are Asian Americans, Recent immigrants buying so many guns lately? There are a ton of dem voters out there, who hate the GOP/ MAGA rhetoric, but their #1 priority is they want to feel safe and they don't.

And if a die hard left voter like me thought long and hard about Zeldin.. and we lost 4 districts.. I'd say you have a bigger problem than just arguing my points are stupid and you're right.

I won't change you and you won't change me.

You can be who you want but to win elections you need a MAJORITY and to get that you are going to have to compromise with those dem voters (not fake independents) who feel threatened by crime feeling out of control in the streets.

Actually, no. You lost 4 districts because of the ignorance of the voters in those districts.. It's the same ignorance you have, which you have demonstrated in your responses.

 

[NWRMidnight]

And, as the data has shown, the death penalty has no effect on crime.
"Oh, but those we executed won't commit any more crimes!"
Great, that's not going to have any actual effect on crime rates, any more than swatting every mosquito you see around a pool of stagnant water will reduce the number of mosquitoes. You need to clean up the stagnant water. There is no justice served by the death penalty, it doesn't undo the crime, it doesn't prevent others from committing crime. And, in our current system, it will always be unfairly applied to people of lesser means, and you want to expand it further.

I imagine if the death penalty had any effect on crime, it would actually increase it, due to new criminals being created out of vengeance by those that didn't believe the person should have been put to death (family/friends/etc). It is most likely why data shows it has no effect because it cultivates a new criminal that replaces the statistic marker for the one that was put to death, so no noticeable change to the data from a statistical stand point.

 

[Indus]

Actually, no. You lost 4 districts because of the ignorance of the voters in those districts.. It's the same ignorance you have, which you have demonstrated in your responses.

Right..

Keep saying you are ignorant and a DINO since they don't pass your purity test.

See how that works with winning elections.

Oh wait.. people here elected George Santos because they thought dems were soft on crime.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 

[cytg111]

Right..

Keep saying you are ignorant and a DINO since they don't pass your purity test.

See how that works with winning elections.

Oh wait.. people here elected George Santos because they thought dems were soft on crime.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Is dems soft on crime?
Or is it something the Fox propaganda machine is mass messaging.

Do dems want to defund the police?
Or is it something the Fox propaganda machine is mass messaging.

Do dems want to...

 

[Indus]

Is dems soft on crime?
Or is it something the Fox propaganda machine is mass messaging.

Do dems want to defund the police?
Or is it something the Fox propaganda machine is mass messaging.

Do dems want to...

Fox is propaganda 98% of time..

2% of the time.. it is truth twisted..

But when you see the police actually scared to catch criminals.. people start talking and blaming people at the ballot box.. that they thought would protect them!

 

[NWRMidnight]

Right..

Keep saying you are ignorant and a DINO since they don't pass your purity test.

See how that works with winning elections.

Oh wait.. people here elected George Santos because they thought dems were soft on crime.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

What purity test did I bring up? Your ignorance has nothing to do with any purity test.

I don't think you understand why George Santos was elected.. it has nothing to do with crime... oh wait.. maybe it does, just not in the way you are implying, as he sure has committed a lot of crimes it turns out.

Fox is propaganda 98% of time..

2% of the time.. it is truth twisted..

But when you see the police actually scared to catch criminals.. people start talking and blaming people at the ballot box.. that they thought would protect them!

Careful, your ignorance is on display. Which is why you are using an example of the police being scared, where the cause, isn't rooted in politics. But because of your ignorance, you don't understand that basic fact.

 

[Indus]

What purity test did I bring up? Your ignorance has nothing to do with any purity test.

I don't think you understand why George Santos was elected.. it has nothing to do with crime... oh wait.. maybe it does, just not in the way you are implying, as he sure has committed a lot of crimes it turns out.

Careful, your ignorance is on display. Which is why you are using an example of the police being scared, where the cause, isn't rooted in politics. But because of your ignorance, you don't understand that basic fact.

Walk down memory lane:

Bail reform puts de Blasio at odds with progressives

The uproar over bail reform has grown amid a rash of anti-Semitic assaults.

www.politico.com

and current:

Hochul says her bail law changes are about fairness

The budget is due April 1.

spectrumlocalnews.com

note:

Hochul in Rochester pivoted to an issue that animated much of the 2022 campaign season: Tackling rising crime in New York and voter perceptions of feeling unsafe.


I'm not making stuff out of thin air or imagining it. The voting public is showing things need to change. 4 dem house seats flipped. The governor barely won in what should have been a landslide like her predecessor.


Edit: Hmm maybe I should change the title to tougher on crime since we covered just about every criminal topic in here.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Walk down memory lane:

Bail reform puts de Blasio at odds with progressives

The uproar over bail reform has grown amid a rash of anti-Semitic assaults.

www.politico.com

Do you think this some how helps prove you are not ignorant? Question: if you are not the one being ignorant, and since you threw up this article about the democrat New York Mayor from 2020 believing it somehow supports you are not ignorant, and the dems are losing because of crime, why did New York vote in another Democrat Mayor (Eric Adams) back in? Doesn't that indicate that there is something you are missing, or rather, lacking some kind of knowledge (ignorance), as the outcome is not what you claimed it should have been due to crime?

Edit: I just saw your edit, what I said above still applies. All you are doing is showing that there is a rise in crime.. guess what, it's happening across the nation, including republican controlled cities and states.. guess what that means? Crime has been a running platform for decades.. it's nothing new. You really should stop posting, because all you are doing is cementing the fact that you are ignorant and lack the understanding of how to reduce crime.

 

[cytg111]

Fox is propaganda 98% of time..

2% of the time.. it is truth twisted..

But when you see the police actually scared to catch criminals.. people start talking and blaming people at the ballot box.. that they thought would protect them!

Yea, how is capital punishment gonna change that?
Sane gun laws is gonna change that. Some of that.
Again, you're attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

 

[Indus]

Do you think this some how helps prove you are not ignorant? Question: if you are not the one being ignorant, and since you threw up this article about the democrat New York Mayor from 2020 believing it somehow supports you are not ignorant, and the dems are losing because of crime, why did New York vote in another Democrat Mayor (Eric Adams) back in? Doesn't that indicate that there is something you are missing, or rather, lacking some kind of knowledge (ignorance), as the outcome is not what you claimed it should have been due to crime?

Edit: I just saw your edit, what I said above still applies. All you are doing is showing that there is a rise in crime.. guess what, it's happening across the nation, including republican controlled cities and states.. guess what that means? Crime has been a running platform for decades.. it's nothing new. You need to stop posting, because all you are doing is cementing the fact that you are an ignorant fuck!

It may not be new where you are but it sure is semi new where I am.

But did your neighborhood flip 4 seats from blue to red?

Mine did and I'm raising a legitimate point that might help swing the seats back the next time around.

Keep calling people ignorant fucks isn't going to help though.. but seems you're making it personal, welcome to fucking ignore you fucking idiot with his head up his own ass.

 

[Indus]

Yea, how is capital punishment gonna change that?
Sane gun laws is gonna change that. Some of that.
Again, you're attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

Sure but not every violent attack is with a gun.

I want to address total violence not just a subsection.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It may not be new where you are but it sure is semi new where I am.

But did your neighborhood flip 4 seats from blue to red?

Mine did and I'm raising a legitimate point that might help swing the seats back the next time around.

Keep calling people ignorant fucks isn't going to help though.. but seems you're making it personal, welcome to fucking ignore you fucking idiot with his head up his own ass.

Is it new, or are you just starting to take notice of the world around you? That is normal, most people are oblivious of such things until they start getting older, then we start paying more attention to politics, crime, etc.. It's not uncommon.

What legitimate point is that? Democrats are weak on crime? They need to get harder on crime? You really need to do some research and look at the statistics. If you do, you will find, that your legitimate point, is not so legitimate. Guess what that means?

Sorry you take being called out for being an ignorant fuck as personal. It's not, it's just truthful criticism, it's not personal at all. But, according to you, you put me on ignore, so you won't ever see this. To bad, as I didn't mean to hurt your fragile feelings.

 

[brycejones]

Fox is propaganda 98% of time..

2% of the time.. it is truth twisted..

But when you see the police actually scared to catch criminals.. people start talking and blaming people at the ballot box.. that they thought would protect them!

The police aren’t scared they are refusing to do their jobs as a form of hostage taking.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Ive always said Democrats are soft on crime. At least some are coming around. Criminals need punishment, not coddling.

Lock 'em up!

 

[Vic]

Soft on crime is 100% GOP propaganda.

First, liberals are not "soft on crime." They want the laws to be equally and equitably enforced as the Constitution requires. Conservatives want the laws to be unequally enforced, period.

Second, the lack of harsh justice in the court system is not why crime persists. Crime persists because law enforcement does an absolutely shitty job of enforcing the law. Seriously, it is ridiculous. Out of all crimes reported, something like 10% get cleared by law enforcement. What this means that a criminal has like a 90% chance of not just getting away with it, but of probably not even being a suspect. And that's reported crimes, people. The vast majority of crimes go unreported. FFS you can commit murder in this country and there is a greater than 50% chance than you'll never see an indictment much less a jury.
This is why crime persists. Not because of soft on crime liberal prosecutors, but because the police as an institution are woefully incompetent. They'd rather do easy stuff, like collect roadside taxes, pinch dimebaggers, and harass the poor, the gays, and minorities, than fight actual crime.

 

[pmv]

This is why crime persists. Not because of soft on crime liberal prosecutors, but because the police as an institution are woefully incompetent. They'd rather do easy stuff, like collect roadside taxes, pinch dimebaggers, and harass the poor, the gays, and minorities, than fight actual crime.

While I can't say I disagree, the problem is how universal that seems to be. I think one would struggle to find any country anywhere where that couldn't be said about the police. Many countries (particularly poorer countries) are much worse, insofar as the police are corrupt on an even more all-encompassing level. So what can actually be done to improve things?

In practice the main thing that actually works, that causes some countries to have a lower level of crime, is dealing with those social conditions, like poverty and the desperation and psychological damage it causes. Everything else seems to have a second-order effect at most - but by all means lock people up if they _still_ insist on harming others, even when they have other options.

The death penalty seems like a big distraction - I'm not against it on some absolutist moral basis.

But it just seems to involve a huge amount of symbolism and the expenditure of political energy for something that doesn't in practice make much difference either way to the overall level of crime, even violent crime.

And there's also the sheer cost - if you actually implement it, you either end up spending a fortune on the system for applying it - with a zillion safeguards and appeals etc - or you end up regularly executing innocent people.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you want to steer the thread on being "tough on crime", that means a hell of a lot more than just the death penalty.
It is just a side show regarding the notion that America is unsafe with a litany of issues that could and should be addressed.
And down to their root economic causes.

One of the issues is simple. Rioting does not equal protesting. Protesting is a protected right of free speech. Rioting is a violation of other people's property, their rights, their safety and their lives.

 

[Vic]

If you want to steer the thread on being "tough on crime", that means a hell of a lot more than just the death penalty.
It is just a side show regarding the notion that America is unsafe with a litany of issues that could and should be addressed.
And down to their root economic causes.

One of the issues is simple. Rioting does not equal protesting. Protesting is a protected right of free speech. Rioting is a violation of other people's property, their rights, their safety and their lives.

Not sure why this is relevant. Most rioting occurs because those in power prohibit people from engaging in peaceful protest. Half the time, police will just create the riot, the other half provocateurs will be sent in to ensure it.
But otherwise, rioting rarely if ever occurs when people are allowed to peacefully protest.

 

[Vic]

While I can't say I disagree, the problem is how universal that seems to be. I think one would struggle to find any country anywhere where that couldn't be said about the police. Many countries (particularly poorer countries) are much worse, insofar as the police are corrupt on an even more all-encompassing level. So what can actually be done to improve things?

In practice the main thing that actually works, that causes some countries to have a lower level of crime, is dealing with those social conditions, like poverty and the desperation and psychological damage it causes. Everything else seems to have a second-order effect at most - but by all means lock people up if they _still_ insist on harming others, even when they have other options.

The death penalty seems like a big distraction - I'm not against it on some absolutist moral basis.

But it just seems to involve a huge amount of symbolism and the expenditure of political energy for something that doesn't in practice make much difference either way to the overall level of crime, even violent crime.

And there's also the sheer cost - if you actually implement it, you either end up spending a fortune on the system for applying it - with a zillion safeguards and appeals etc - or you end up regularly executing innocent people.

The primary issue here IMO is that govts hold the monopolies on the legal use of violence and law enforcement generally has the monopoly on that legal use of violence domestically.
As such, they wield tremendous political power and are prone to even worse corruption.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is such a wonderful thread in my opinion. I think it is all about an elephant. Sadly, I could only add what I think an elephant is but I have a feeling it would only look like lots of dung on the floor.

 

[Moonbeam]

The primary issue here IMO is that govts hold the monopolies on the legal use of violence and law enforcement generally has the monopoly on that legal use of violence domestically.
As such, they wield tremendous political power and are prone to even worse corruption.

I do not see a connection between this potential for worse corruption with doing a shitty job of law enforcement. I can see them doing a shitty job enforcing the law regarding their own violations, but I don’t see why they would be so bad at solving other crime because of that.

Not arguing or disagreeing. Just don’t see a commection.