Crime Boston's Democrat mayor says criminals should not be prosecuted for a variety of crimes including theft and wants to abolish the gang registry

[Rob Battisti]

That's an absurd position for a normally rational person.

"In no world will I ever accept information that contradicts how I feel right now."

And before addressing how you're disregarding the specifics of what is being prosecuted vs. not. No one ever said not to punish any crimes ever, so that's a pretty huge misrepresentation of the claim.

The data you are presenting is stating that if you don’t prosecute low level crime that the offenders will be less likely to offend again.

That seems absurd and contradicts every bit of common sense anyone could have.

It also would suggest that you’d see less crimes such as shoplifting in places that implemented such measures. Yet, in Portland, a place that tried to do this, you saw the opposite. Forgive me if I think the study is BS.

Furthermore, the idea of not prosecuting crimes such as breaking and entry is repugnant. It is shocking that it doesn’t seem repugnant to you as you are usually very level headed.

I simply am on the side that low tolerance is a better policy than high tolerance. I believe that when you are surrounded by low level crime, it is a net negative to the society in that the population will feel less safe and you experience higher levels of demoralization.

For instance, it’s perfectly natural to ask yourself why should you buy something when a criminal can just walk out of a store with the same thing with no consequence. I am of the belief that when someone gets away with something without consequences, there is no reason they will all of a sudden just never do it again.

In essence, I completely disagree with the study AND find anyone who would put the future damages to a criminals life over the safety and wellbeing of society to be just plain silly.

 

[nhbbear]

What a study of Suffolk county found is that society got less recidivism. You can weigh that against "vengeance" and "victim satisfaction". But if society gets less repeat criminals or escalating criminals then I'd put that above one guy getting a good feeling for seeing the criminal in jail. Society over the individual.

But the data is limited here so I'm not claiming it's the answer, only that kneejerk responses are stupid, imo.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/us/new-york-city-mayor-police-recidivists-bail-reform/index.html
I disagree.


So does officials in NYC with recidivism rising

 

[panamaican]

The data you are presenting is stating that if you don’t prosecute low level crime that the offenders will be less likely to offend again.

That seems absurd and contradicts every bit of common sense anyone could have.

It also would suggest that you’d see less crimes such as shoplifting in places that implemented such measures. Yet, in Portland, a place that tried to do this, you saw the opposite. Forgive me if I think the study is BS.

Furthermore, the idea of not prosecuting crimes such as breaking and entry is repugnant. It is shocking that it doesn’t seem repugnant to you as you are usually very level headed.

I simply am on the side that low tolerance is a better policy than high tolerance. I believe that when you are surrounded by low level crime, it is a net negative to the society in that the population will feel less safe and you experience higher levels of demoralization.

For instance, it’s perfectly natural to ask yourself why should you buy something when a criminal can just walk out of a store with the same thing with no consequence. I am of the belief that when someone gets away with something without consequences, there is no reason they will all of a sudden just never do it again.

In essence, I completely disagree with the study AND find anyone who would put the future damages to a criminals life over the safety and wellbeing of society to be just plain silly.

I'm on the side where I read the data and adjust my opinion accordingly. It doesn't matter if it seems absurd. The history of the world is filled with ideas that seemed absurd because they diverged from common opinion and eventually turned out to be better paths forward.

I'm arrogant but not so arrogant that I ignore new information when it comes to my attention.

 

[panamaican]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/us/new-york-city-mayor-police-recidivists-bail-reform/index.html
I disagree.


So does officials in NYC with recidivism rising

Bail reform is not what we're talking about here. Let's stick with apples to apples.

Bail reform requires that someone is being prosecuted, otherwise there's no bail to reform. What they're talking about in Boston is not prosecuting at all. You're knowledgeable enough to know the difference and not make these false equivalencies.

 

[Cirris]

I think one of the bigger problems this country has is being too soft on gangs. She's gonna regret that decision if she moves forward.

Nah, She'll be fine. It's the dumb fuck working and lower class that voted her in that'll suffer her policies. Whether it be constant burglaries in the neighborhoods, Store closings that'll cripple quality of life, or the straight up beats and killings the poor will endure so elitist virtue signalers can be smug and righteous in their gated communities.

 

[oldshadow]

See my 2 posts above this one.

And you're completely wrong about the justice system. The first priority of the justice system is not justice for the victims. Never has been, never will be. "Punishment" is not about the victims. It's punishment for breaking the laws of the land. The individual has a duty to society to abide by the law, we punish people for breaking the government's rules, not to make the victims feel better.

The argument over let the law handle it don't take justice into your own hands because that's not how a law abiding society functions was and always will be about justice for the victims and their families.

Otherwise it is certainly about fuck the victims you don't matter is this.

What to you think victim impact testimony is about. Why do you think any DA worth anything takes into consideration the wishes of the victims and why does the court.

It's people like you that don't give a shit about the victims and only care about how to make the criminals life's better.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm on the side where I read the data and adjust my opinion accordingly. It doesn't matter if it seems absurd. The history of the world is filled with ideas that seemed absurd because they diverged from common opinion and eventually turned out to be better paths forward.

I'm arrogant but not so arrogant that I ignore new information when it comes to my attention.

That’s the point though, your study is refuted by the obvious failure in cities that tried this.

 

[king hippo]

yeah because one deranged politician in bumfuck boston represents the entire party...this is like saying republicans stand for incest because Donald was getting all thirsty for his daughter.

this is the standard platform of progressives

 

[Cartiac]

There is a study out of Suffolk County, Mass that says this. This is not Panamaican's personal opinion. He is simply sharing information.

Being exposed to new information shouldn't be so angering.

That you and others keep trying to say that I am claiming it, as opposed to the a study that found this after looking at the actual repeat criminal interactions, tells me that either you're not reading or you're idiots.

You keep hiding behind this "study" yet you have not cited or quoted a single word from this study. You are not simply sharing information at all. You are in fact giving your opinion of what you heard/read which I would bet is based on an article about the study not even the study itself.

 

[king hippo]

who else is sick and tired of leftist moralizing while their cities are getting eaten alive in real time by their own policies? i'm so sick of this shit.

 

[Red Dragoniop]

who else is sick and tired of leftist moralizing while their cities are getting eaten alive in real time by their own policies? i'm so sick of this shit.

yeah then the rich ones flee to red states and vote blue lol ... and most of the time its still not enough to swing the state.... most liberals are poor and cant do anything but suck on the system

 

[HomeCheese]

Man, who the fuck elects these lunatics?
You have to be in a suicide cult to vote for somebody whose main goal is to make the city worse.

Right?

So, I'm wondering about the crimes Trump just convicted for. Are you in favor on being tough on the crimes Trump does?

 

[HomeCheese]

If the goals is to fuck Boston up, then she is the person for the job!

So you are tough on crime but think Trump should walk?

 

[Whippy McGee]

So you are tough on crime but think Trump should walk?

What crime did he commit?

 

[HomeCheese]

What crime did he commit?

Oh jeez, you didn't know? Oh wow, this will be hard for you: He was convicted on all counts.

So my question can you explain your tough on crime stance but willingness to let Trump off the hook? It's confusing.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

I find it fascinating when these soft on crime politicians are the victim of a violent crime.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

Oh jeez, you didn't know? Oh wow, this will be hard for you: He was convicted on all counts.

So my question can you explain your tough on crime stance but willingness to let Trump off the hook? It's confusing.

What underlying crime did Trump commit again?

Have they even told the jury yet? Not that it mattered, because they were going to convict him regardless.

In Clown World:

Some dipshit working for Trump sent money to a porn actress who was extorting him = Gang bangers shooting up the neighborhood.

 

[nhbbear]

Bail reform is not what we're talking about here. Let's stick with apples to apples.

Bail reform requires that someone is being prosecuted, otherwise there's no bail to reform. What they're talking about in Boston is not prosecuting at all. You're knowledgeable enough to know the difference and not make these false equivalencies.

Are the same people being arrested time and time again? Yes. The criminals in nyc know they are unlikely to be charged or harshly punished and the criminals in Boston will follow suit. False equivalency? Ok

 

[Cartiac]

That’s the point though, your study is refuted by the obvious failure in cities that tried this.

This guy is a clown, he has not read a word of his "study" which is an article not a study and it a complete joke. The whole thing is very poorly written and constructed to the point of frequent incoherence which I highly suspect is deliberate obfuscation.

I will point out a few interesting bits of info in there that shed a bit of light on what is really going on.

First, the conviction rate for the cases they do choose to prosecute is an abysmally low 26%! No wonder they want to make up this BS to justify prosecuting less something really messed up is going on there.

The data is also extremely cherry picked in a clear attempt to manufacture data to support their pre- determined conclusion. A large majority of the Non Prosecuted data (63%) is minor (29%) motor vehicle crimes. Then the numbers on the Prosecuted data they are comparing to claim it is the act of prosecution that makes these people commit crimes are vastly different. We now have 65% serious crimes with only 33% motor vehicle crimes as well as 3x+ the number of previously convicted criminals

I can go on but have spent enough time on this. I live in LA so there is nothing new or surprising about this corrupt shit.

 

[HomeCheese]

What underlying crime did Trump commit again?

Have they even told the jury yet? Not that it mattered, because they were going to convict him regardless.

In Clown World:

Some dipshit working for Trump sent money to a porn actress who was extorting him = Gang bangers shooting up the neighborhood.

You know pal, just keep on coping. Looks like you are tough on crime, err, that is, tough on crime as long as Trump is not involved. lol.