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

originally posted by: Aazadan

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.

Can't have it both ways bub. They get paid so they don't turn to crime to make money. Okay, great. So why am I not being paid so I don't have to turn to crime to make money?

And let's be clear here: the program pays them to not commit crimes with a firearm. It doesn't pay them to not commit crime, period. So your point is moot, in that you're attempting to make it sound as if they're being paid to not commit crimes at all, and that's not the case.

You know what else pays money so you don't have to commit crimes to get by?

A job. But that requires work.

a reply to: Shamrock6

If only it wasn't harder for ex-cons to get a job.

Perhaps another option might be to make incarceration less inviting. I have read of stories where convicts have tried to break back into jail because they couldn't make it on the outside.

Once someone has been jailed for any length of time, in many cases they apparently lose the fear of being incarcerated. Without the criminal element seeing the downside of imprisonment, that option loses it deterrent value.

So, my suggestion would be to return to the prison system of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of us are familiar with the term ball-and-chain as it refers to a spouse, but this concept actually originated in the penal systems' use of a large steel ball attached to the inmate's leg with a chain and large bracelet.

And these inmates of old were also given plenty of opportunity for exercise. They had the pleasure of using a heavy sledge hammer to turn big rocks into little rocks for about 12 hours a day.

Their wonderful catered meals featured a selection of breads and the finest vintage of water. Not to mention the occasional finger bowl of gruel.

Finally, their apparel was the ever-trendy black and white horizontal stripes.



-dex

a reply to: Shamrock6

You also haven't proven yourself to be unstable and likely to commit a crime. I would have no problem with a basic income for all (which could tie into this), but that's not really what's being argued. You're arguing for economic equality, they get something for x so you want to get something for x. Who ever said the world was fair? People aren't equal, and they don't get the same pay for doing the same thing pretty much anywhere.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
Perhaps another option might be to make incarceration less inviting. I have read of stories where convicts have tried to break back into jail because they couldn't make it on the outside.

They do it all the time, people go to jail because it's better than being poor in the US. In jail you're guaranteed food, shelter, recreation, and activity. Not so on the outside.

Once someone has been jailed for any length of time, in many cases they apparently lose the fear of being incarcerated. Without the criminal element seeing the downside of imprisonment, that option loses it deterrent value.

Jail has never been effective as a deterrent, not now, not 100 years ago. It's purely punitive in nature, mainly for vengeance. Fines are a more effective penalty and deterrent. Jail doesn't really do anything other than cost society money or act as a source of labor for societies needs that otherwise wouldn't get done... not a problem we have today.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: budzilla
Is it just me or could this create crime? "Hey I hears Leyron got outta lockup, He gettin pay'd not do crime no mo, me gonna gets me somma dat too."

Wow, just wow...

Agree with the point, but, as for how you chose to go about making it, well...how does the meme go?

"Obvious racist is obvious."

I have 2 nieces and 1 nephew and they all talk like that, so do their friends.

I agree with the sentiments that paying criminals not to kill will grow until everyone is getting paid to not commit crimes, not a great financial ideal. The way I understand it is they're not getting paid to follow the laws, just not kill anyone, which is important but will be an expensive fix and no guarantees.

A quick stats check shows 650,000 - 690,000 people are released from prison each year. And remember, they weren't incarcerated for stealing bubble gum from the local convenience store. Will they only pay persons convicted of physical injury/assault crimes?

Would it be for legal citizens only or anyone in the country?

On the other hand, maybe it would be a good idea to give every person over 18 $1,200.00 a month. It's a drop in the bucket. /sarc

a reply to: Aazadan

They do it all the time, people go to jail because it's better than being poor in the US.

Perhaps in the deepest recesses of the ghetto that may be the only alternative. I'm not too familiar with that environment. But for the rest of the country, there are better options than that. I've firsthand seen how job training and other social "hand-up" programs (as opposed to "hand-out" programs) can make a positive impact in the lives of those who previously felt that they had no hope. For the most part, anyone with a genuine interest in trying to escape poverty can do so. It may take a lot more effort than to surrender to the temptation of "3 hots and a cot" in prison, but the outcome has much greater potential for success.

In jail you're guaranteed food, shelter, recreation, and activity. Not so on the outside.

My proposal guarantees those things. However, gruel, bread, and water is not much better than what they can get outside, even from a dumpster. A 6 foot by 8 foot cage, or a tent in the middle of the desert, is only slightly better than a large cardboard box in the alley. And I propose plenty of recreation and activity in the form of turning big rocks into little rocks from sun-up to sun-down. Even someone living in a cardboard box and dining on dumpster scraps can find something more entertaining than that.

Jail has never been effective as a deterrent, not now, not 100 years ago. It's purely punitive in nature, mainly for vengeance. Fines are a more effective penalty and deterrent.

Perhaps the notion of going to jail doesn't work as a deterrent for you, but it is definitely does for me. And it works as a deterrent for most of the people I know.

I also can't see how fines would be much of a deterrent for the poor. If someone is too broke to pay for adequate food and shelter, I can't imagine that being saddled with some other extraneous fee would make much difference. As the old saying goes: "You can't get blood out of a turnip." In my case, while I'm far from being rich, I find the notion of a fine to be far less intimidating than a stay in the local jail.

It seems to me that those who do not view incarceration as a deterrent have been raised with a defective mindset. If anyone considers the scenario I have proposed to be preferable to a potentially productive life in society, then I suggest they be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. However, perhaps a more cost-effective solution would be to exterminate such individuals as one would any disease carrying rodent.

-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
Perhaps in the deepest recesses of the ghetto that may be the only alternative. I'm not too familiar with that environment. But for the rest of the country, there are better options than that. I've firsthand seen how job training and other social "hand-up" programs (as opposed to "hand-out" programs) can make a positive impact in the lives of those who previously felt that they had no hope. For the most part, anyone with a genuine interest in trying to escape poverty can do so. It may take a lot more effort than to surrender to the temptation of "3 hots and a cot" in prison, but the outcome has much greater potential for success.

I've known many people that have gone down that route. In the depression it was very common as well because conditions on the inside were better than the outside. At least in the part of the country I've lived in for the last 15 years, that's true right now too. I know I've certainly contemplated it a time or two, but never did, especially a couple years ago where I was working 50 hours/week had a 90 sqft apartment and could only afford to eat once a day. My experience with job training programs is that they're useless, I taught one for awhile for my town the so called hand up programs. I would teach people to use various software like access, excel, word, etc and while plenty of people learned new skills I'm not aware of anyone who actually increased their position in life from doing so because bottom tier skills you get from hand up programs are useless because anyone can do them with minimal training.

My proposal guarantees those things. However, gruel, bread, and water is not much better than what they can get outside, even from a dumpster.

Harsher conditions don't really deter people though, if you're going to commit a crime and there's no incentive to get an easier sentence for committing a lesser crime then nothing holds a person back from murdering everyone to eliminate witnesses. That becomes the safest move actually, it also makes it more dangerous for law enforcement personnel because no one has an incentive to be taken down peacefully but rather to die resisting.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't want to get something for doing X, and pray don't conflate the issues into a whinging session on my part. I'm perfectly capable of entertaining a theory without it being a closely held belief.

"Life ain't fair" isn't really much of an argument, to be honest. No, it isn't. And programs like this go out of their way to highlight the disparities.

"Oh you poor dear, we can't expect you to hold down a job that we've set you up with. Best to just give you money and ask you nicely to stop doing what you've been doing. Part of it, anyway. You can keep doing the rest of it, we won't tell anybody."

That is, at its core, what this program is. Nothing more, nothing less. Reinforcing the idea that there's something "wrong" with the people that enter it, they can't be expected to be productive members of society, so just pay them to (maybe) not do something.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: gumbico

How about we pay hoodrats NOT to have children? That would solve the problem...

We tried. The conservatives called it welfare though and refused to allow it on any grounds other than giving people money to support children they can't afford.

Also, given recidivism rates, $1000/month=$12,000/year, that's less than 1/4 what it costs to jail them while keeping them out of trouble. A net gain for honest citizens.

Until a we are paying millions of criminals not to commit crime.

originally posted by: chuck258
Until a we are paying millions of criminals not to commit crime.

It's still far cheaper than jailing them.

a reply to: Puppylove

It is hard. Which is why it's perplexing that cities want to take money out of job programs and put them in to this.

The neighbor's kid is constantly running over Mrs. Smith's hydrangeas and flowerbeds with his bicycle. The kid's mother punishes him and has had to ground him for a week at a time and his dad took his bike away as punishment.

But every time the kid finished his grounding punishment and got his bike back, he would do it again!

Now, the parents are paying the kid $25 per week not to run over Mrs. Smith's hydrangeas. It's a lot cheaper to just pay their kid rather than have to replace Mrs. Smith's flowerbeds all the time.

originally posted by: queenofswords
The neighbor's kid is constantly running over Mrs. Smith's hydrangeas and flowerbeds with his bicycle. The kid's mother punishes him and has had to ground him for a week at a time and his dad took his bike away as punishment.

But every time the kid finished his grounding punishment and got his bike back, he would do it again!

Now, the parents are paying the kid $25 per week not to run over Mrs. Smith's hydrangeas. It's a lot cheaper to just pay their kid rather than have to replace Mrs. Smith's flowerbeds all the time.

There's a big difference between permanently taking away someones bicycle and throwing them in prison for life.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: queenofswords
The neighbor's kid is constantly running over Mrs. Smith's hydrangeas and flowerbeds with his bicycle. The kid's mother punishes him and has had to ground him for a week at a time and his dad took his bike away as punishment.

But every time the kid finished his grounding punishment and got his bike back, he would do it again!

Now, the parents are paying the kid $25 per week not to run over Mrs. Smith's hydrangeas. It's a lot cheaper to just pay their kid rather than have to replace Mrs. Smith's flowerbeds all the time.

There's a big difference between permanently taking away someones bicycle and throwing them in prison for life.

Of course, there is...duh. But the principle is the same.

I haven't committed a gun crime, or any crime, my entire life. Please send me some fat checks.

a reply to: gumbico

Who's responsible if they commit crimes again?

The state?

"I'm sorry I robbed the quicky mart, but the check was lost in the mail so I guess it was okay to start robbing again".

originally posted by: queenofswords
Of course, there is...duh. But the principle is the same.

No, it's not. Taking a bicycle away means selling an asset and then failing to replace it, to do otherwise represents constantly paying to replace an item. Putting someone in jail or paying to ground them represents an ongoing expense that produces no value other than employing prison guards where as giving them a stipend better enables them to contribute to society.

a reply to: Aazadan

Come again?

Throughout this thread there's been more than one complaint about how hard it is for felons to find jobs.

How does "up to $1,000 a month" help them contribute to society? It doesn't employ them. It comes with no obligations other than not carrying a gun around. Or do they "contribute" by just being good dudes who probably don't have a gun on them?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Come again?

Throughout this thread there's been more than one complaint about how hard it is for felons to find jobs.

How does "up to $1,000 a month" help them contribute to society? It doesn't employ them. It comes with no obligations other than not carrying a gun around. Or do they "contribute" by just being good dudes who probably don't have a gun on them?

What do you think they do with that money?

They spend it, creating jobs for people.

In a consumer society contributing to society doesn't mean working, it means creating a need for goods and services. Something all people do innately if they have spare money to spend.