User_Name13 t1_j5usbik wrote
Reply to comment by mortgagepants in Philadelphia juvenile street gang linked to thefts of nearly 100 firearms from Pennsylvania gun stores by TreeMac12
> if they don't get any money for it, it will stop.
This is completely wrong.
People are stealing cars for joyrides so they get social media clout.
There's literally a TikTok social media challenge about stealing Kia's and Hyundai's for shits and giggles:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/08/tiktok-challenge-spurs-rise-in-thefts-of-kia-hyundai-cars.html
People commit crimes for clout all the time.
It's normal.
The only thing you can do to discourage anti-social, violent behavior like this is enact stiff sentences for offenders.
We've been doing the exact opposite of that in Philly since about ... 2018, when Krasner took over as DA.
mortgagepants t1_j5uus2c wrote
lol stiff sentences don't do shit for people stealing cars for fun.
if more policing was the key to stopping crime, our $750 million per year would make us one of the safest cities per capita in the country.
User_Name13 t1_j5uz0rj wrote
>lol stiff sentences don't do shit for people stealing cars for fun.
Uh, ... actually they do.
They provide harsh punishment for committing a given crime, thereby disincentivizing that activity.
When you remove the penalty for committing a crime, more people are going to commit that crime.
It's not exactly rocket science.
>if more policing was the key to stopping crime, our $750 million per year would make us one of the safest cities per capita in the country.
Stiff sentences.
The police don't charge and sentence criminals, that's Krasner, our DA who loves treating criminals with kid gloves. Judges are the ones who issue sentences.
mortgagepants t1_j5v05qw wrote
lol i was waiting to see some criminology statistics and shit. your compelling argument is "its not rocket science."
read a fucking book.
User_Name13 t1_j5v15m5 wrote
https://www.city-journal.org/why-incarceration-matters
FTA:
"The United States Sentencing Commission, using its access to massive amounts of data about thousands of federal criminal defendants over many decades, decided to test the effects of incarceration on recidivism. The commission chose to study 32,135 federal criminal defendants released in 2010. The study divided the defendants into five groups based on length of sentence: 24–36 months, 36–48 months, 48–60 months, 60–120 months, and more than 120 months. The commission then checked to see which of the released defendants committed new crimes during an eight-year follow-up period."
"The results were compelling. For defendants receiving a sentence of more than 60 months (five years), the odds of recidivism were 18 percent lower than a matched group of prisoners receiving shorter sentences. For defendants with sentences of more than 120 months (ten years), the odds of recidivism were 29 percent lower. These conclusions were statistically significant at p<0.001—a statistical measure that shows profound reliability. No statistically significant difference in recidivism was found for defendants serving less than 60 months."
"Contrary to current academic thinking, then, the length of a criminal’s sentence matters quite a bit in reducing future offending. Why are these findings so important? First, because they offer a stern rebuttal to the academic literature downplaying the effect of lengthy sentences; the commission even devotes an entire section of its report to assessing these studies. But perhaps more importantly, the commission’s findings are a blow to progressive prosecutors, who have been relying on flawed academic literature to push for lower sentences for just about every crime, even violent ones, claiming that reduced sentences will not cause more crime. One of the main proponents of this philosophy is Philadelphia district attorney Larry Krasner, who specifically criticized sentences longer than five years, promised that crime would drop if he avoided lengthy sentences, and scoffed at law enforcement officials who warned him of the consequences if he enacted his policies. Krasner delivered on his promises, dropping murder charges even in the case of video evidence and handing out lenient sentences. The predictable result: violent criminals have overrun Philadelphia, with murder soaring to an all-time record and police officers shot during a Fourth of July celebration."
>read a fucking book.
No need to be rude. We're having a discussion about policy, it's better to leave emotion out of it.
mortgagepants t1_j5v2rvp wrote
ah ok- you tell me it isn't rocket science that is fine, but me telling you to read a book hurts your feelings.
then, you link me a blog post written by a previous DA that now works at the manhattan institute, a conservative lobbying group most famous for promoting the "broken windows" ideology, that essentially removed 4th amendment rights from anyone police didn't like. they're also funded by the koch brothers, who are infamous for their family ties to nazi germany, soviet russia, reducing worker's rights, and disregard for environmental protections.
i can't tell if you actually believe this stuff, or you're just doing some kind of PR for the FOP.
User_Name13 t1_j5v3quf wrote
>but me telling you to read a book hurts your feelings.
Telling someone to "read a fucking book" is absolutely an insult.
You don't have anything to say about the findings of the study?
You're just going to attack the source?
Why don't you address the findings of the study?
Would that not be convenient to your narrative?
>or you're just doing some kind of PR for the FOP.
Nice, another insult.
It sounds like you don't have any actual points to make, you're just lobbing insults at people.
mortgagepants t1_j5v4syq wrote
telling me it isn't rocket science is an insult as well. and yeah, since i dont have time to run my own experiment, i absolutely have to criticize the biased source.
he even writes "contrary to prevailing wisdom" or some such...meaning there are many studies refuting his idea.
also, how or to whom is PR for the FOP an insult?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments