I'm down for reverting back to biblical times, at least until we can control our crime issue.
Place to put my Nonsense Thread.
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
You reserve prison spots for the worst offenders and instead of sending low level offenders to prison, where they learn how to commit more or more severe crime, you try to help them stop being criminals. Some use the the help and stop committing crime, some don’t. In this scenario, you reduce crime and reduce the prison population.
So yes, reducing the prison population can reduce crime.
Actually yea i say coke alot as well. Its either pop or coke regardless of brand.
Apologies. Yea ppl that live up north are a diff breed. It gets cold enough here if ky.
Prisons cost more than rehabilitation facilities.
And we’re not taking about letting murders get off lightly. I don’t know where that came from.
She said to stop VIOLENT crime, the answer is to build less prisons. Violent crimes, brook. Violent crimes.
Increasing prison sentences doesn’t deter crime. To a criminal, the difference between a 10 year sentence and a 20 year sentence doesn’t mean anything because they don’t think they’ll be caught.
She very clearly wasn’t saying to give violent criminals less harsh sentences. She said reducing prisons could reduce violent crime. Two different things. Prisons aren’t full of only violent criminals.
Quit making the discussion something that fits your desires. What she said was stupid as shit and only you would try and spin it like this. Stupid. It's no wonder liberal cities are riddled with violent criminals and murders.
They’re called parking garages in N.Y.
East of Syracuse drinks ‘soda’. West of Syracuse drinks ‘pop’.
East of Syracuse drinks ‘soda’. West of Syracuse drinks ‘pop’.
As a Person who regulary commits crime it def matters. I dont mind riding around with bud bc they will write me a ticket. Im not gonna ride around with anythting else on me bc i dont want to be in jail. If they made possessing weed a 5 year madatory sentence or even prosecuted like cocaine/heroin/meth it l id quit smoking.
If they cut armed robbery down to 1 year, there woukd be 1000s of armed robberies around the nation the very next day. Hell i might take a run at something.
You are right in some cases, some are destermined to do the crime, sentence be damned. Just depends on The criminals physche. And most violent crimes do prob fall into thos category i will concede that.
What she said wasn’t stupid as shit. Reducing prisons can reduce violent crime. Prevent non-violent criminals from graduating to violent crime. Try to mold criminals to be productive citizens. Both are good ways to prevent violent crime and both result from putting fewer people behind bars.
You’re using extreme examples. Nobody is talking about reducing violent crimes to a tenth of their current sentences.
And the comment about increased sentences having little to no effect in crime deterrence comes from the Department of Justice. They would know.
It was and is stupid as shit. I am all for reforming our prison systems. But reducing prisons will not decrease violent crimes. We're all getting dumber and dumber each time someone suggests this.
You want prison reform but also want the prison population to stay at its current insanely high level or increase?
Oh, look. A steep drop in violent crime over the past 30 years. The numbers will be significantly higher from these past two years, unfortunately. Presumably because more prisons were built.
You'd be better off if you just said that probably wasn't what AOC meant. Building prisons has zero connection to deterring criminal behavior. If she said we should reduce prison sentences, then that would have a much, much, different meaning. But, that's not what she said. She said that we could reduce violent crime if we stopped building prisons. Criminals don't think, "Gee, I was going to destroy, pillage, and plunder today. But I realized prisons aren't being built, so that makes me feel hopeful. I think I'll hold off on that impulse."
Oh, look. A steep drop in violent crime over the past 30 years. The numbers will be significantly higher from these past two years, unfortunately. Presumably because more prisons were built.
What’s the significance of the past 30 years?
If we reduce the prison population (by reallocating lower level criminals to programs better suited for rehabilitation) we will likely reduce violent crime, all else equal.
I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with her saying we need to incarcerate fewer people to combat crime, violent or otherwise.
Just to show the trend that violent crime is going down in this country, notwithstanding the past two years.
And I don't know what the data is on prisons built during this time period, but I'm guessing there are more prisons now than 30 years ago. So, it's likely we're seeing reduced rates of violent crimes while simultaneously seeing more prisons built. Obviously there is no correlation. If she wants to say we need less severe penalties and sentences, fine. Say that. But, what she said was moronic.
It’s down since the 90’s, yes. It’s up since the 70’s. I was just wondering what the significance of those starting points is.
She wasn’t saying the physical existence of a building with ‘prison’ written on it is the cause of violent crime.
Low level should be put directly into community physical labor.
Where is the logic behind the notion that fewer prisons would lead to fewer violent crimes? Because saying it doesn't make it so. Let's hear some sound logic here.
Similar threads
