Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2016 18:14:53 GMT -5
The right-leaning Washington Post has an interesting article up called "Cities begin to challenge a bedrock of justice: They’re paying criminals not to kill": The odds were good that Lonnie Holmes, 21, would be the next person to kill or be killed in this working-class suburb north of San Francisco. Four of his cousins had died in shootings. He was a passenger in a car involved in a drive-by shooting, police said. And he was arrested for carrying a loaded gun.
But when Holmes was released from prison last year, officials in this city offered something unusual to try to keep him alive: money. They began paying Holmes as much as $1,000 a month not to commit another gun crime.
Cities across the country, beginning with the District of Columbia, are moving to copy Richmond’s controversial approach because early indications show it has helped reduce homicide rates. But the program requires governments to reject some basic tenets of law enforcement even as it challenges notions of appropriate ways to spend tax dollars.
In Richmond, the city has hired ex-convicts to mentor dozens of its most violent offenders and allows them to take unconventional steps if it means preventing the next homicide.
For example, the mentors have coaxed inebriated teenagers threatening violence into city cars, not for a ride to jail but home to sleep it off — sometimes with loaded firearms still in their waistbands. The mentors have funded trips to South Africa, London and Mexico City for rival gang members in the hope that shared experiences and time away from the city streets would ease tensions and forge new connections.
And when the elaborate efforts at engagement fail, the mentors still pay those who pledge to improve, even when, like Holmes, they are caught with a gun, or worse — suspected of murder.
The city-paid mentors operate at a distance from police. To maintain the trust of the young men they’re guiding, mentors do not inform police of what they know about crimes committed. At least twice, that may have allowed suspected killers in the stipend program to evade responsibility for homicides.
And yet, interest in the program is surging among urban politicians. Officials in Miami, Toledo, Baltimore and more than a dozen cities in between are studying how to replicate Richmond’s program. The District of Columbia is first in line. My take on the program? It depends on what happens when the money and "mentorship" is taken away, which isn't known yet since this is a very recent experiment. The principle behind the policy really doesn't sit well with me: paying people not to commit heinous crimes. But if there's real rehabilitation going on, and these individuals persist in living crime- and homicide-free lifestyles once the monetary incentive is cut, it seems like it might be worth a try. I truly hope this doesn't backfire and wind up inducing crime in individuals hoping to "qualify" for mentorship. Or worse, breed an attitude of entitlement that effectively makes a hostage out of municipal governments: pay us or else watch the bodies pile up. Thoughts?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 28, 2016 18:25:28 GMT -5
The mentorship program may show some promise, but I would not be happy with or optimistic about paying people not to commit crimes. Sounds pretty asinine.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,746
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Mar 28, 2016 18:27:53 GMT -5
Wasn't there a syfy movie years ago about predicting who would commit crimes but I think they went after them and did away with them before they could commit the crimes.
So some criminal is going to be paid $12,000 a year not to commit a crime - a gun crime? He'll collect his $12,000 while robbing/mugging people with a knife.
Oh, I just saw the line about trips to South Africa, London and Mexico City - damn I may have to move and commit a crime for the free vacations from the mentors - well they can mark Mexico City off the list BTDT.
And who pays crimes doesn't pay - beats flipping hamburgers any day. Can they open up IRA's with money - pay tax, SS and Medicare withheld?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 28, 2016 19:00:24 GMT -5
might be a good approach in the war on terror.
i mean, consider the cost of it. we have spent $1T, to defeat what, by most accounts, is about a 50,000 person problem.
you do the math.
we could probably cast a gold statue for every one of those guys for what we spend trying to kill them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2016 19:26:16 GMT -5
might be a good approach in the war on terror. i mean, consider the cost of it. we have spent $1T, to defeat what, by most accounts, is about a 50,000 person problem. you do the math. we could probably cast a gold statue for every one of those guys for what we spend trying to kill them. The US's war on terror is probably one of the most compelling arguments not to engage in such a program. 99 times out of 100 the US has taken the 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approach to dealing with terrorism or religious extremism, the recipients end up defecting and the monies funding terrorist activities. For "paid rehabilitation" to work, there has to be a fundamental desire to be rehabilitated. In the case of terrorism, I see no such desire. In the case of inner-city gang violence, I don't know either way. It seems to me that a reasonable individual exposed to both a non-violent existence and a gang-banging existence would choose the non-violent existence. Hence we can think of money as a catalyst to get people over onto the right side of the tracks where they come to this same conclusion and persist in conducting themselves lawfully even in the absence of an incentive. However, people aren't always reasonable. A dog returns to its own vomit, as the proverb goes. It may well be "once a gang-banger, always a gang-banger" and that cities are really and truly accomplishing nothing more than paying would-be murderers not to murder people (as long as the money holds out).
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 28, 2016 19:48:16 GMT -5
Wasn't there a syfy movie years ago about predicting who would commit crimes but I think they went after them and did away with them before they could commit the crimes.
Minority Report?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 28, 2016 19:56:19 GMT -5
might be a good approach in the war on terror. i mean, consider the cost of it. we have spent $1T, to defeat what, by most accounts, is about a 50,000 person problem. you do the math. we could probably cast a gold statue for every one of those guys for what we spend trying to kill them. The US's war on terror is probably one of the most compelling arguments not to engage in such a program. 99 times out of 100 the US has taken the 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approach to dealing with terrorism or religious extremism, the recipients end up defecting and the monies funding terrorist activities. For "paid rehabilitation" to work, there has to be a fundamental desire to be rehabilitated. In the case of terrorism, I see no such desire. In the case of inner-city gang violence, I don't know either way. It seems to me that a reasonable individual exposed to both a non-violent existence and a gang-banging existence would choose the non-violent existence. Hence we can think of money as a catalyst to get people over onto the right side of the tracks where they come to this same conclusion and persist in conducting themselves lawfully even in the absence of an incentive. However, people aren't always reasonable. A dog returns to its own vomit, as the proverb goes. It may well be "once a gang-banger, always a gang-banger" and that cities are really and truly accomplishing nothing more than paying would-be murderers not to murder people (as long as the money holds out). well, the dollars aren't working, either. just sayin'.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Mar 28, 2016 20:17:39 GMT -5
I'm pretty much a die-hard harm reductionist but I can definitely see the difficulty of analyzing the effectiveness of program.
It's probably not hard to identify who is most at risk but when the mentors, not the police, are determining who participates, there's a real cherry-picking problem. The mentors might well be choosing the folks who they believe can be helped by the program. The folks who have been identified as likely to kill or be killed but have not been accepted into the program are hardly a control group.
I don't see how to create such a control group except by identifying folks as being in the kill or be killed cohort and randomly excluding some of them from the program, which sets off ethical alarm bells.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 28, 2016 20:19:24 GMT -5
And who pays crimes doesn't pay - beats flipping hamburgers any day. Can they open up IRA's with money - pay tax, SS and Medicare withheld? Ha. That's the great thing about cold hard cash. Stuff it under your mattress, your net is equal to your gross and your retirement fund is 100% tax-free. You think the tax man is going to come looking for it? Being a banger isn't all bad news.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2016 20:27:24 GMT -5
The American government spends money on a lot worse things. Michigan spent $35,000,000 to help bankroll Superman vs Batman. People think it wrong to give money to some guy who started out with a crappy life. Dont give any to Hollywood moguls and give $20,000,000 to fund this, none to Hollywood and come out $15,000,000 ahead.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Mar 28, 2016 20:27:53 GMT -5
And who pays crimes doesn't pay - beats flipping hamburgers any day. Can they open up IRA's with money - pay tax, SS and Medicare withheld? Ha. That's the great thing about cold hard cash. Stuff it under your mattress, your net is equal to your gross and your retirement fund is 100% tax-free. You think the tax man is going to come looking for it? Being a banger isn't all bad news. I doubt that much of it is getting stuffed under a mattress. It sounds more like what's not being spent on shelter is going towards fast food and mind candy to keep your babysitters/bodyguards on the job. But it's a bloody bargain compared to what is costs to incarcerate or autopsy someone.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 28, 2016 20:32:33 GMT -5
The American government spends money on a lot worse things. Michigan spent $35,000,000 to help bankroll Superman vs Batman. People think it wrong to give money to some guy who started out with a crappy life. Dont give any to Hollywood moguls and give $20,000,000 to fund this, none to Hollywood and come out $15,000,000 ahead. They did not do it to help bankroll the film. They offered tax breaks and incentives to ensure that much of the $141 million spent to make the film got spent in Michigan. It created jobs, it got money spent which created some of the tax money used as incentives, and it likely helped create a better atmosphere to bring in future business and spending.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 28, 2016 20:49:42 GMT -5
The American government spends money on a lot worse things. Michigan spent $35,000,000 to help bankroll Superman vs Batman. People think it wrong to give money to some guy who started out with a crappy life. Dont give any to Hollywood moguls and give $20,000,000 to fund this, none to Hollywood and come out $15,000,000 ahead. They did not do it to help bankroll the film. They offered tax breaks and incentives to ensure that much of the $141 million spent to make the film got spent in Michigan. It created jobs, it got money spent which created some of the tax money used as incentives, and it likely helped create a better atmosphere to bring in future business and spending. It's like he never read the link and story I posted earlier today explaining the $35 million in "governmen assistance".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 28, 2016 20:56:07 GMT -5
They did not do it to help bankroll the film. They offered tax breaks and incentives to ensure that much of the $141 million spent to make the film got spent in Michigan. It created jobs, it got money spent which created some of the tax money used as incentives, and it likely helped create a better atmosphere to bring in future business and spending. It's like he never read the link and story I posted earlier today explaining the $35 million in "governmen assistance". Or had any idea that this is a VERY common thing for states and businesses. Come on, really?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 29, 2016 8:50:24 GMT -5
Ha. That's the great thing about cold hard cash. Stuff it under your mattress, your net is equal to your gross and your retirement fund is 100% tax-free. You think the tax man is going to come looking for it? Being a banger isn't all bad news. I doubt that much of it is getting stuffed under a mattress. It sounds more like what's not being spent on shelter is going towards fast food and mind candy to keep your babysitters/bodyguards on the job. But it's a bloody bargain compared to what is costs to incarcerate or autopsy someone. Couldn't we say, though, that all that spending is creating jobs for jailers and coroners? I just... What has society come to, where we're paying men not to murder each other because we can't afford the cost of jailing the perpetrators and processing the bodies?
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Mar 29, 2016 9:11:46 GMT -5
Well, there might be a few more reasons to do this that I haven't mentioned.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 29, 2016 9:15:55 GMT -5
Well, there might be a few more reasons to do this that I haven't mentioned. Do mention.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Mar 29, 2016 9:38:59 GMT -5
Here? You've gotta be kidding! I'll be shredded for suggesting that these lives matter and might be worth saving if there were only some way to get them through the stupid year. I'll be mocked if I point out that the stipend payments look a bit like a Pell Grants. I'm not going to win over anyone with those arguments. I've gotta argue for fewer punctured bystanders and fewer bullet holes to patch if I want to win anyone over.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 29, 2016 9:58:40 GMT -5
Here? You've gotta be kidding! I'll be shredded for suggesting that these lives matter and might be worth saving if there were only some way to get them through the stupid year. I'll be mocked if I point out that the stipend payments look a bit like a Pell Grants. I'm not going to win over anyone with those arguments. I've gotta argue for fewer punctured bystanders and fewer bullet holes to patch if I want to win anyone over. It's a liberal board with liberal posters. You'll be lauded not crucified.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 29, 2016 10:00:35 GMT -5
I'd rather pay young women not to have children so they can become educated and self supporting before having children. If we are going to throw money away, let's throw it where the problem starts.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 29, 2016 10:11:49 GMT -5
might be a good approach in the war on terror. i mean, consider the cost of it. we have spent $1T, to defeat what, by most accounts, is about a 50,000 person problem. you do the math. we could probably cast a gold statue for every one of those guys for what we spend trying to kill them. The US's war on terror is probably one of the most compelling arguments not to engage in such a program. 99 times out of 100 the US has taken the 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approach to dealing with terrorism or religious extremism, the recipients end up defecting and the monies funding terrorist activities. For "paid rehabilitation" to work, there has to be a fundamental desire to be rehabilitated. In the case of terrorism, I see no such desire. In the case of inner-city gang violence, I don't know either way. It seems to me that a reasonable individual exposed to both a non-violent existence and a gang-banging existence would choose the non-violent existence. Hence we can think of money as a catalyst to get people over onto the right side of the tracks where they come to this same conclusion and persist in conducting themselves lawfully even in the absence of an incentive. However, people aren't always reasonable. A dog returns to its own vomit, as the proverb goes. It may well be "once a gang-banger, always a gang-banger" and that cities are really and truly accomplishing nothing more than paying would-be murderers not to murder people (as long as the money holds out). I don't like the monthly payment idea. Who monitors whether these guys are complying? No one can follow them around 24/7.
However, I think we do need to be more creative rather than just locking people up in jails all the time. A lot of the time, the problem comes from hanging around with the same old 'bad' crowd and being unemployed and unemployable. What if we offered a program where we shipped these guys off to some kind of halfway house in a less urban area where jobs are more available, and then mentored them through training programs and into real jobs? Help them get GED's and training to be an electrical apprentice or a welder? For those who are seriously interested in finding a better way, it would give them a chance to get out. After a 2 - 3 year program, they're self supporting and out of the gang lifestyle. For those who just like gangbanging - there's always getting shot or jails.
I'm all for helping people improve their circumstances. Not for free money, though. Except in the case of paying young women at risk of getting pregnant to use long term BC - THAT I think would benefit society financially, long term.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,898
|
Post by haapai on Mar 29, 2016 11:02:22 GMT -5
I truly hope this doesn't backfire and wind up inducing crime in individuals hoping to "qualify" for mentorship. Or worse, breed an attitude of entitlement that effectively makes a hostage out of municipal governments: pay us or else watch the bodies pile up. Thoughts? The six-month delay before anything gets paid out, the possibility of not being accepted, and the relatively small monthly amounts that only get paid if you hit participation requirements, make committing additional crimes just to qualify a pretty long-term strategy with uncertain rewards. It also appears that things that happen to relatives and acquaintances are a big part of the selection criteria. Raising your odds of qualifying by doing more things involving guns and cops seems like a dumb strategy. On the other hand, the existence of this program may increase the odds that other people will call the cops on you when you are carrying or around other people who are carrying guns. Doing so might be rationalized as a form of intervention, or a way of increasing household income.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2016 11:11:29 GMT -5
Here? You've gotta be kidding! I'll be shredded for suggesting that these lives matter and might be worth saving if there were only some way to get them through the stupid year. I'll be mocked if I point out that the stipend payments look a bit like a Pell Grants. I'm not going to win over anyone with those arguments. I've gotta argue for fewer punctured bystanders and fewer bullet holes to patch if I want to win anyone over. It's a liberal board with liberal posters. You'll be lauded not crucified. No, it's not. This has been said before and a poll taken at the time it was said proved it to be a false assumption. Liberal vs conservative was about even. Most posters were somewhat moderate.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 29, 2016 11:45:35 GMT -5
Good God...we are now paying people not to commit crimes?? What the hell has our country come to?
Guess what, I haven't killed anyone in the last 12 months...please send me my check
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:06:19 GMT -5
They did not do it to help bankroll the film. They offered tax breaks and incentives to ensure that much of the $141 million spent to make the film got spent in Michigan. It created jobs, it got money spent which created some of the tax money used as incentives, and it likely helped create a better atmosphere to bring in future business and spending. It's like he never read the link and story I posted earlier today explaining the $35 million in "governmen assistance". I did not see a link or a story posted by you. I read about it the other day on Reason.com. If you give people money not to murder they most likely will spend the money. That creates jobs. Not murdering is likely to create a better atmosphere also. All money that get spent creates jobs. It was nothing but welfare for some of the richest people on Earth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:08:40 GMT -5
It's a liberal board with liberal posters. You'll be lauded not crucified. No, it's not. This has been said before and a poll taken at the time it was said proved it to be a false assumption. Liberal vs conservative was about even. Most posters were somewhat moderate. Most posters think they are moderate. Most posters think other posters are not moderate. I am happily on the extreme though. You should come join me there sometime and help fight the good fight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:09:50 GMT -5
Good God...we are now paying people not to commit crimes?? What the hell has our country come to?
Guess what, I haven't killed anyone in the last 12 months...please send me my check We are paying millions to movie producers to make movies. Because they shouldn't have to risk their money to make money.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 29, 2016 16:12:44 GMT -5
It's like he never read the link and story I posted earlier today explaining the $35 million in "governmen assistance". I did not see a link or a story posted by you. I read about it the other day on Reason.com. If you give people money not to murder they most likely will spend the money. That creates jobs. Not murdering is likely to create a better atmosphere also. All money that get spent creates jobs. It was nothing but welfare for some of the richest people on Earth. Hickle-you must have missed it. I posted it 30 minutes after you posted on the Current Events board's 'Another one bites the dust' thread. Reply #30, second page.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:39:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:22:59 GMT -5
I did not see a link or a story posted by you. I read about it the other day on Reason.com. If you give people money not to murder they most likely will spend the money. That creates jobs. Not murdering is likely to create a better atmosphere also. All money that get spent creates jobs. It was nothing but welfare for some of the richest people on Earth. Hickle-you must have missed it. I posted it 30 minutes after you posted on the Current Events board's 'Another one bites the dust' thread. Reply #30, second page. I did miss that. Can you explain why my thinking is wrong. ----> Instead of giving $35 million to Warner Brothers to spend in Michigan. Tax the population of Michigan $35 million dollars less then they did. Let the people who earned that money spend it instead of Warner brothers. Instead of it going to vendors to support a movie maker, it could have went to restaurants to feed the family of the man/woman who earned the money by working. Or instead of a restaurant, maybe the mall or maybe whatever the person who earned it wanted.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 29, 2016 16:33:41 GMT -5
Hickle-you must have missed it. I posted it 30 minutes after you posted on the Current Events board's 'Another one bites the dust' thread. Reply #30, second page. I did miss that. Can you explain why my thinking is wrong. ----> Instead of giving $35 million to Warner Brothers to spend in Michigan. Tax the population of Michigan $35 million dollars less then they did. Let the people who earned that money spend it instead of Warner brothers. Instead of it going to vendors to support a movie maker, it could have went to restaurants to feed the family of the man/woman who earned the money by working. Or instead of a restaurant, maybe the mall or maybe whatever the person who earned it wanted. Hickle-Warner Brothers could have filmed the movie in any state if they wished. Don't hold me to it but I think I read Warner Bros. was initially going to film the movie on Toronto. So the Michigan Film office reached out to Warner Bros and basically said, 'Hey Warner Bros-we will give you $35 million in incentives to film in Michigan.' Warner Bros. replied, 'Cool. Then we will spend $131 million of our money in Michigan, which will include employing a number of Michigan citizens while making the movie, using Michigan based vendors for our film, and eat and sleep in Michigan restaurants and hotels.' So Michigan gave up $35 million in incentives to have Warner Bros spend $131 million in Michigan. Deduct $35 million from $131 million and Michigan and its citizens made $96 million dollars. $96 million dollars that could have gone to Toronto or any other states in the U.S. Does that make sense to you? Don't you have to often invest money to make money?
|
|