It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cities begin to challenge a bedrock of justice: They’re paying criminals not to kill

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aazadan

Okay. I'm staying out of jail so...where's the money? I'm all for being compensated for doing something. But why is it a go so idea to pay one person to not do something and not pay another person to not do the exact same thing?


Why do you have to be paid because someone else is? If you aren't paid, are you going to go out and commit several crimes?




posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If someone wants to be paid, they need to get a job like the rest of us. You shouldn't have to pay someone to not commit crimes. What is this, some kind of mob protection racket?



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Aazadan

If someone wants to be paid, they need to get a job like the rest of us. You shouldn't have to pay someone to not commit crimes. What is this, some kind of mob protection racket?


But that doesn't seem to work. Recidivism rates prove it, people relapse, but when they're getting some extra they don't. It's a very cost effective way to prevent crime.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Cities begin to challenge a bedrock of justice: They’re paying criminals not to kill.

That people is nonsense.

That people isn't justice.

It's the same principle for US foreign policy, and trying to buy 'friends'.

IT doesn't work



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Even if someone could PROVE that this guy isn't committing crimes despite his agreement, I would still be against this. This money comes from all the people who work hard and follow the rules.

Sal

a reply to: gumbico



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
Even if someone could PROVE that this guy isn't committing crimes despite his agreement, I would still be against this. This money comes from all the people who work hard and follow the rules.

Sal

a reply to: gumbico



So you would rather honest people spend 4-5x as much to throw him in prison instead?



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Yes of course I would rather pay more to lock him up.

Sal

a reply to: Aazadan



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aazadan

Okay. I'm staying out of jail so...where's the money? I'm all for being compensated for doing something. But why is it a go so idea to pay one person to not do something and not pay another person to not do the exact same thing?


Why do you have to be paid because someone else is? If you aren't paid, are you going to go out and commit several crimes?


Why does somebody have to be paid at all?

Why do some people completely miss the point so they can argue?



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Double
edit on 29-3-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I'm not too keen to know that my tax money goes to paying known criminals to not keep committing crimes.

I'm also not too keen to lock them up for more, though.

Let's all go out and commit some violent crimes to get free paychecks.


If only more good people were armed, and would shoot these thugs down in the street for their shenanigans. Reduces crime, criminals, repeat offenders, prisoners, and likely welfare cases, to boot.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Wait your obviously not talking about the US.

Our recidivism rate is somewhere around 80% and its because you can't get a damn job with a record.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




So you would rather honest people spend 4-5x as much to throw him in prison instead?


Totally agree with you. It solves an issue and saves money and lives and people on ats are complaining about it.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: gumbico

I thought we had a name for this. When the mafia comes around the asks you to pay for them not to wreck your business, we call it extortion. So now, we are paying on a societal scale? Extortion to our criminal elements on a societal scale.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

Wait your obviously not talking about the US.

Our recidivism rate is somewhere around 80% and its because you can't get a damn job with a record.


This right here is the issue, once someone has served their time, their rights need to be restored.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I've been trying to organize a hashtag protest directed at the presidential candidates through a few bigger groups I'm part of on Facebook but apparently all anyone wants to do is bitch about their problems.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
Yes of course I would rather pay more to lock him up.

Sal

a reply to: Aazadan



So you're in favor of tax increases for pointless spending then? Why?


originally posted by: Shamrock6
Why do some people completely miss the point so they can argue?


Because it prevents them from turning to crime to support themselves. Don't like it? Start going out of your way to hire people with convictions.


originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

Wait your obviously not talking about the US.

Our recidivism rate is somewhere around 80% and its because you can't get a damn job with a record.


And a way to address that is to give people an income stream.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
It's official.
Crime does pay. And in installments.

FFS


And here I thought crime only paid for bankers and politicians.
I guess they just can't spread the wealth enough.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

Wait your obviously not talking about the US.

Our recidivism rate is somewhere around 80% and its because you can't get a damn job with a record.


This right here is the issue, once someone has served their time, their rights need to be restored.


Maybe they were never employable in the first place - lack of education, lack of desire to work, bad attitude.
Why can't they be homeless like billions of others around the world who do nothing to further their own situation?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   
My way is cheaper. Execution.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
My way is cheaper. Execution.


So you want execution for every jailable offense? I assume you're also against the appeal process that makes executions cost millions of dollars each?

Are you still pro execution when our justice system gets it wrong 1 in 4 times? That's a whole lot of executing of innocent people.
edit on 30-3-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join