Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ist2qaj wrote

[deleted]

58

dc_co t1_ist563o wrote

I personally don't like this section.

> For example, the bill restores the right to a jury trial for most misdemeanor offenses — though, in the latest version of the bill, the changes would be phased in slowly over time to account for the extra burden it will put on the city’s court.

I think low level offenders will request jury trials in hopes that cases get dropped by an already overburdened system. We have enough petty crime that is not prosecuted already. For me, it reduces the quality of life in this city.

112

AnalystTherapist99 t1_ist8rw2 wrote

I one hundred percent agree with this. I did a detail at the misdemeanor section of the USAO from the federal agency I worked at and I can say that just expanding jury trials alone would vastly increase the amount of resources needed to prosecute these cases. On a typical court day, we'd have a docket of anywhere from 25-75 cases, and many days when multiple cases were set for trial. They often would not go for various reasons (defendant didn't show up, case pleaded out, defense counsel wanted more time to review several GBs of body worn camera), but if they did go you'd often get handed a case jacket from a colleague who already had a trial and have to try the case on the fly before a judge. Jury trials would make this impracticable (you need so much more prep to present to a jury than a judge) and would hinder the prosecution of misdemeanors, many of which are quality-of-life crimes (for example, car window smash-and-grabs). None of this to mention as well the burden on the citizenry because a defendant wants to have 12 people consider whether he or she shoplifted from Target.
I see online that people are always blaming the USAO for not being diligent enough in prosecuting crimes. What I don't think people realize is how stretched thin the USAO is. They also don't realize that one of the Public Defender Services' overarching goals is to create busywork and delay for the USAO, making it harder for the USAO to prosecute their clients. The less time the USAO has to devote to cases, the more it needs to focus on the low hanging fruit and less on the more marginal (but still real) criminal cases. That end result appears to be exactly the intended goal.

50

The_Sauce_DC t1_ist9rsb wrote

Being MPD I’m dreading Every. Fucking. Case. that’s worth prosecuting being an all-day court affair. It’ll be good for the junior AUSAs to get trial experience I guess.

43

DcDonkey t1_istke9n wrote

Basically what Charles Allen is doing is making the harassment of women, stalking, verbal abuse, etc consequence free.

The police may arrest someone and charge them and then that person will be out in the street free to commit the same offenses for the next 2-3 years while they wait for their trial date.

39

The_Sauce_DC t1_istlwd9 wrote

That, or more cases will get dropped. DC residents will love getting several times the amount of jury summons.

Ideally they could build a second courthouse EOTR and run some classes cases through there and take the pressure off 500 Indiana Avenue.

28

CMTWhite t1_isuwcx4 wrote

Ya we all know how MPD feels about due process

−8

romulusjsp t1_isug1up wrote

Prosecutors when the government is asked to meet the burden it is constitutionally required to meet: 😡😡😡

9

[deleted] t1_isvtclj wrote

[deleted]

−3

BackgroundDish1579 t1_iswal7j wrote

Are you talking about what the 2nd amendment actually covered or what some radical lunatic justices created out of whole cloth over 200 years later? Those are two different things.

3

cptjeff t1_isy2nth wrote

Strictly construed, the 2nd Amendment only applies to state authorized, organized and trained militias.

2

[deleted] t1_ist5qzm wrote

[deleted]

33

dc_co t1_ist6d7a wrote

> My guess is they feel like the right to a jury trial is more important

And i agree with this in theory. I just think the city will need to massively expand it's resources on all things court related. I haven't seen any history from Allen that would lead me to believe he will support expanding those resources.

27

WealthyMarmot t1_istc0ky wrote

The city can't hire more prosecutors or Superior Court judges. Congress has to do that. And that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

This essentially decriminalizes a huge swath of low-level offenses. And there is no way the Council does not realize this.

27

me_speak_computer t1_ist8ft0 wrote

Sure, but we do have a constitutional right to trial by jury and I think people should have a right to defend themselves.

20

The_Sauce_DC t1_istyxay wrote

The jury right starts when a crime has a sentence six months or greater. That’s why DC Code currently has a split between charges that have 180 days max sentence vs. six months and above. Looking it up in SCOTUS it’s Baldwin v New York.

26

Brickleberried t1_isuu79i wrote

That might be how it's done, but that's in direct opposition to the plain language of the Constitution.

Article 3, Section 2: > The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That doesn't say anything about the severity of crime or the potential punishment of the crime. It says "all Crimes".

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This also doesn't specify anything about the severity of the crime or the potential punishment.

The Supreme Court just made up shit, as it is wont to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_v._New_York

1

[deleted] t1_isvtqa9 wrote

[deleted]

−5

healthbear t1_isxwofs wrote

The second amendment is for state control of internal security saying that the federal government cannot take the away the people's right in the form of duly constituted regulated state militias and ability of said state militias to have armories. The nonsense created by the wacko's who took over the NRA in the seventies was invented whole cloth out of nothing.

3

6FeetBeneathTheMoon t1_istzvqy wrote

According to the Supreme Court that right only extends to crimes with possible punishment of over 6 months imprisonment.

You can still defend yourself in a bench trial.

11

Brickleberried t1_isuu02r wrote

I mean, that's what the Supreme Court says, but that's not what the Constitution says.

> The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It's pretty cut-and-dry. Trials of ALL crimes (except impeachment) shall be by jury. The Supreme Court routinely ignores the Constitution, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This also doesn't specify anything about the severity of the crime or the potential punishment.

The Supreme Court just made up shit, as it is wont to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_v._New_York

Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted for accurately quoting the Constitution, but you do you, folks.

−5

CombyMcBeardz t1_isuxhlc wrote

That's cool and all that you think you know better than the 120+ years of experience that sits on the Supreme Court bench.. but you could at least read the Opinion from the case and see that prior cases dating back pre-1890 long established the definition of "petty" offenses not being covered by the Constitution.

It's easy for you to sit there today and say "the Constitution is written plainly!" but it is a whole other thing to look at the context and realize that words had different meanings in 1787. Crime and punishment were so different back then, and even the concept of an organized Police Department wasn't really established yet at the time.

The context matters.

6

Brickleberried t1_isv23ng wrote

It's very easy to sit here today and say that "all crimes" means "all crimes" because that's what it fucking says.

Imagine living in 2022 and still thinking that the Supreme Court doesn't just make shit up sometimes.

−2

CombyMcBeardz t1_isv4at1 wrote

You obviously haven't read the case opinion or done any research at all on the historical context of the word "crime."

Page 59/60 goes in depth into the historical definition of the word "crime" and how it did not include misdemeanors in how we now classify things. The founders literally had two words for what we know today as "crime." The Supreme Court didn't just pull shit out of nowhere in their decision, they viewed it in the historical context of the language.

5

Brickleberried t1_isv7stv wrote

I just read that, and it literally supports what I said. "All crimes" means "all crimes".

1

CombyMcBeardz t1_isvb0uq wrote

It.. doesn't support your view, at all?

The text explains that "Crimes" in the context of 1787 meant crimes above what we now call Misdemeanors. There's a reason section 4 of Article 2 specifies "crimes and misdemeanors" for which conviction would remove a President and other Executive Officers from power.

2

Brickleberried t1_isvkojg wrote

> A crime, or misdemeanor, is an act committed, or omitted, in violation of a public either forbidding or commanding it. This general definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors; which, properly speaking, are mere synonymous terms; though in common usage the word 'crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are of a deeper and more atrocious dye; while smaller faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name 'misdemeanors'

And:

> Constitution. But the unanimous court, speaking by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, held that "the words, 'treason, felony, or other crime,' in their plain and obvious import, as well as in their legal and technical sense, embrace every act forbidden and made punishable by the law of the State. The word 'crime' of itself includes every offense, from the highest to the lowest in the grade of offenses, and includes what are called 'misdemeanors,' as well as treason and felony."

> Most of the currently accepted definitions of the term "crime" are in harmony with the above statement of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY. Thus BISHOP, in his NEW CRIMINAL LAW, says, "A crime is any wrong which the govern- ment deems injurious to the public at large, and punishes through a judicial proceeding in its own name." ? 32. And again: "We have three degrees of crime,-the highest being called Treason, the intermediate grade Felony, and the name of the lowest being Misdemeanor." ? 602. BLACK'S LAW DIC- TIONARY says: "The better use appears to be to make crime a term of broad and general import, including both felonies and misdemeanors, and hence covering all infractions of the criminal law. In this sense it is not a technical phrase, strictly speaking (as 'felony' and 'misdemeanor' are), but a con- venient general term. In this sense, also, 'offense' or 'public offense' should be used as synonymous with it." BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY defines "crime" as "An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it * * * A wrong which the government notices as injurious to the public, and punishes in what is called a criminal proceeding in its own name." And the CENTURY DICTIONARY defines it as "An act or omission which the law punishes in the name and on behalf of the State, whether because expressly forbidden by statute or because so injurious to the public as to require punishment on grounds of public policy; an offense punishable by law."

All that is exactly what I said it was.

2

CombyMcBeardz t1_isvxkec wrote

> though in common usage the word 'crimes' is made to denote such offenses as are of a deeper and more atrocious dye; while smaller faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name 'misdemeanors'

3

sontow3 t1_isvqa39 wrote

In our system, like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final say on what the Constitution says. Not you.

1

Brickleberried t1_isxu4av wrote

Just because the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says pi = 3 doesn't mean the Constitution says pi = 3.

I know what the Supreme Court said. I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't say what the Supreme Court says.

2

sontow3 t1_isy3ctb wrote

I'm saying you can say X, the Supreme Court can say Y - neither of you can dictate what the other (or anyone else) believes - but what the Supreme Court says matters a ton for the laws that affect this land and what you believe matters not at all.

2

Brickleberried t1_isy4jln wrote

Sure. The Supreme Court's opinions is what matter in how law is practiced, not the Constitution. I'm just saying that the Constitution says we have this right even if we functionally don't because the Supreme Court decided it didn't want to listen to the Constitution on this, and the government just goes with that.

1

sontow3 t1_isys7tn wrote

Surely though you can also understand that if everyone says "whatever I say is what the Constitution 'says'" then it's pretty useless to even talk about what the Constitution says. It's only useful because there is a singular body that gets to decide how the Constitution applies to our society.

2

Brickleberried t1_isyyu5a wrote

I'm not saying "whatever I say is what the Constitution says". I'm literally directly quoting the Constitution and saying that the Constitution says what the Constitution says. The Constitution is supposed to be the foundation of our country, and it very clearly contradicts what the Supreme Court has decided to actually enforce.

Words have meaning, even if the government ignores it for now.

1

sontow3 t1_iszmw4b wrote

When you say "words have meaning" and then try to say what is meant by the Constitution, you're implicitly claiming for yourself the ability to decide for everyone what the Constitution means. But you're not the person or entity that our society has empowered to decide what the Constitution means. The Supreme Court is.

1

Brickleberried t1_iszofpt wrote

I'll use your "words have no meaning" stance and interpret your entire comment to wholly agree with me because I interpret all those words you used with completely new meanings that they've never had before just so I can come to that conclusion.

This is a fun game.

1

sontow3 t1_it08nhs wrote

Again, why do you think you are the one who gets to decide the meaning of the words in our Constitution? For more than 200 years, our society has agreed that the Supreme Court is the body that decides the meaning of the words in our Constitution. They don't decide the words that go in the Constitution, but they do decide what they mean. And then our laws have to abide by the meaning they pick.

Again, given that we've let them decide the meaning of the words in the Constitution for more than 200 years, why do you think we should instead let you decide?

Edited to add, since you've misscharacterized or missunderstood me. Words have the meanings that humans assign them. They do not have independent objective meanings. In common usage, their meaning is decided by, well, common usage - and then somewhat codified by dictionary authors. But for lots of specific uses - scientific, legal, academic, etc., it is normal to define key terms - i.e. to say "for the purpose of this document, x, y, and z words will be defined as meaning _____, _____, and ____, as opposed to their common usage.

As a society, we have for more than 200 years agreed that the words in the Constitution are not to be assigned definitions based on each individual's perception of their common usage (which changes over time and differs from region to region and person to person), but instead that the Supreme Court will determine the meaning of the words and combination of words in the Constitution.

Perhaps you understand that and you're arguing in bad faith. Perhaps you don't. I don't know.

1

Brickleberried t1_it0a23f wrote

I'll use your "words have no meaning" stance and interpret your entire comment to wholly agree with me because I interpret all those words you used with completely new meanings that they've never had before just so I can come to that conclusion.

This is a fun game.

1

sontow3 t1_it0w2dg wrote

So you're arguing in bad faith. Kudos to you, you wasted time on the internet today, learned nothing even when provided the opportunity, didn't rethink any previously held but ill-founded stances, and looked like an idiot to anyone who bothered to read what you wrote (all 3 of them, perhaps).

You're kinda useless, huh?

1

Brickleberried t1_it4xxz5 wrote

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm using your own argument. If you think it's in bad faith, then that's very telling of your own argument.

I'm literally just reading the words in the Constitution with their well-known, standard definitions.

1

sontow3 t1_it5yjz8 wrote

Again, I did not argue that words have no meaning, and I already said that words have the meaning humans assign them. Sometimes that meaning comes from common use (although still not as defined by you), but for many specific documents a specific entity chooses the definitions. That's true of academic, legal, scientific, and other documents. In the case of the Constitution, our society has for more than 200 years assigned the Supreme Court the authority to pick the definitions that apply for the words in the Constitution.

Now, I have no doubt you'll continue to reject that - and likely respond in bad faith once again, because this notion challenges your personal yet deeply held notion that you, of all people, know what the words in the Constitution mean and should be able to define them for all of society, even though the bulk of our society has for 200 years agreed that the Supreme Court gets to define those words.

But I encourage you to consider how we would possibly have a meaningful Constitution if everyone, in every Court battle, was allowed to say "I believe that, according to the definitions I think we should use, the Constitution means _________."

0

Brickleberried t1_it9tzwi wrote

So you're saying that the Supreme Court can say that "crimes" actually means "bunnies", and you're telling me that I'm just supposed to accept that as the actual meaning of the word "crimes" in the Constitution and that it's intellectually dishonest/egotistical for me to say that "crimes" just means something like "illegal acts".

1

sontow3 t1_itamzdi wrote

What's intellectually dishonest is for you to resort to straw men arguments like the idea that the Supreme Court would decide that "crimes" means "bunnies." But I think you knew that.

0

Brickleberried t1_itaqmxk wrote

You're the one saying that "all crimes" doesn't mean "all crimes" and that I should just be happy with that, so if it doesn't mean "crimes", why shouldn't it mean "bunnies"?

1

sontow3 t1_itasezb wrote

Again, you're being dishonest. I never said you should be happy about anything. I said that our society has for more than 200 years agreed that the Supreme Court gets to define the words in the Constitution for the purpose of using the Constitution, not you. So far, your only response is "but I want to define the words in the Constitution because I think I know what they mean better than the Supreme Court!!!!" But you haven't even once attempted to explain why you think anyone else would accept your definitions rather than accepting the Supreme Court's definitions.

And if you think each individual should get to define the words in the Constitution for themself, you haven't explained how we'll ever be able to resolve any legal dispute with each person picking their own definitions as they choose.

Honestly I think you've come to understand that your point of view is stupid but you don't want to admit (to yourself, I don't care and you don't know me anyway), that you've been stupid, so you just keep flailing here.

0

Brickleberried t1_itawi97 wrote

So like I said, you're saying that if the Supreme Court defines "all crimes" to mean "all bunnies", we should all just accept it. If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution actually allows for 10-year presidential terms instead of 4-year terms, you're saying that it's intellectually dishonest for me to accurately point out that the Constitution says 4-year terms and that the Supreme Court's opinion is wrong.

I think we should let "all crimes" mean "all crimes" because that's literally the words being used. Now, maybe you can see the words "crimes with punishments of >= 6 months" somewhere in the Constitution, but I don't. Perhaps you can point me to where in the Constitution it says that.

What the Supreme Court says the Constitution says is not the same thing as what the Constitution says.

1

sontow3 t1_itayenp wrote

Does repeating "wah wah, I should get to define what the Constitution says, not the Supreme Court, listen to me! listen to me!" make you feel good?

Well, nobody's going to care what you say the Constitution says anyway. And nobody should.

0

Brickleberried t1_itdxnm2 wrote

So you think the Supreme Court can say "4 years" means "10 years", and I'm wrong to say that the Constitution says otherwise?

1

sontow3 t1_itfiijx wrote

You can say whatever you want. But you're wrong to think that you, and not the Supreme Court, should get to pick the definitions used for reading the Constitution. And you're absolutely wacky if you think the rest of us are going to go along with what a blowhard like you says as opposed to what the Supreme Court says.

0

Brickleberried t1_ith19k6 wrote

I think you're all absolutely whacky if you think that the Supreme Court should get to decide that 4=10, and that everybody who says, "No, 4=4," is a blowhard.

It's fucking stupid, and you're drinking that Kool-Aid with gusto.

1

sontow3 t1_ithiesc wrote

1.) The Supreme Court has never done that nor has it done anything like that - that's why our society keeps accepting its decisions.

2.) What's fucking stupid is that in like 50 comments the only "solution" you've been able to propose to your imagined problem is that all of society accept your interpretation of the Constitution, as if you should be our un-elected dictator. Sorry, the rest of us just don't have any respect for you, let alone want you to be the one who gets to decide for the rest of us what the Constitution means. We'll let the Supreme Court keep doing that, thank you very much.

0

Brickleberried t1_itjm03k wrote

> 1.) The Supreme Court has never done that nor has it done anything like that - that's why our society keeps accepting its decisions.

Except they did when they said "all crimes" doesn't mean "all crimes" and ignored "well-regulated militia".

> 2.) What's fucking stupid is that in like 50 comments the only "solution" you've been able to propose to your imagined problem is that all of society accept your interpretation of the Constitution, as if you should be our un-elected dictator. Sorry, the rest of us just don't have any respect for you, let alone want you to be the one who gets to decide for the rest of us what the Constitution means. We'll let the Supreme Court keep doing that, thank you very much.

What's stupid is that you think the Supreme Court can use whatever definition they fucking want without regard to what the words actually mean, and that you think I'm the crazy one for thinking that that's crazy.

Your interpretation is fucking nuts. Just admit it.

1

sontow3 t1_itkc5z3 wrote

All these comments and your only message is "wah wah wah, I don't like something the Supreme Court decided and I think I should get to decide how the Constitution applies for everyone in the entire country! wah wah wah."

0

Brickleberried t1_itldkmn wrote

All of your comments are "the Supreme Court can be as corrupt and stupid as possible, and you can't point it out".

1

Xanny t1_isu6usp wrote

Not having a jury trial doesn't mean you don't have a defense, it just means the judge decides.

Theoretically we would rather just have trustworthy judges, but in practice that doesn't happen often enough. Still, if expanded jury trials mean less prosecution of low level crime, thats going to be a net negative for society.

−2

Loki-Don t1_istr9c1 wrote

Yeah, MD voters this year are asked to increase the limit for a jury trial because the system is burdened by a bunch of low level criminals for crimes ~ $10,000 dollars who take the jury trial to drag out the proceedings or leverage against the prosecutor for a better deal.

16

RDPCG t1_isu0n5n wrote

What would be the purpose behind restoring jury trials for misdemeanors offenses? From an outsider's perspective, it seems like a substantial waste of resources that could be used for more serious trials.

6

annang t1_isulowl wrote

Rights

−2

dc_co t1_isumqb8 wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

> The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months.

....

> The right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for no more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement.[2] Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist.

0

annang t1_isuom80 wrote

I didn’t specify federal constitutional rights. The purpose behind jury trials any time the government wants to brand you a criminal and curtail your liberty is to ensure that your right not to be convicted absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt is respected.

3

Brickleberried t1_isuv0qw wrote

Sure, that's what the Supreme Court says, but that's in direct opposition to the plain text of the Constitution.

rticle 3, Section 2: > The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That doesn't say anything about the severity of crime or the potential punishment of the crime. It says "all Crimes".

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

This also doesn't specify anything about the severity of the crime or the potential punishment.

−2

dc_co t1_isw2ee8 wrote

It’s the framework we work under. Not under your interpretation.

3

Sufficient-Job-1013 t1_isvoyue wrote

Expecting a jury for every misdemeanor is insane. That simply won’t happen.

5

dc_co t1_isvr36e wrote

It’s what the commission is recommending. USAO is not.

DC council is broken if this happens.

6

Sufficient-Job-1013 t1_isvsir9 wrote

Didn’t this story break originally on NPR when the USAO openly stated concern with many of the proposed changes - this would have been about 6 months ago?

Seems … not smart to openly flout this type of feedback.

1

dc_co t1_isvtbz8 wrote

There’s a response in this thread with USO comments if you care to search for it. I found it interesting.

2

masedizzle t1_istf1fw wrote

Is there a reason you don't have concern the other way where prosecutors might bully people into taking plea deals or bulldoze someone b/c of the imbalance of power? There's a burden of proof on the prosecution.

2

cptjeff t1_istjx9s wrote

The reason is because the balance is shifted so far in favor of the defense right now that it's highly difficult to successfully prosecute even many very obvious slam dunk cases. Prosecutors in DC are not bullying the innocent into taking plea deals, they have enough trouble getting the people with very obvious illegal guns in jail.

You have to pay attention to the facts on the ground and adjust your positions accordingly. National trends and narratives are often not what's happening on the ground locally.

29

annang t1_isulem4 wrote

Yes, because if the government wants to accuse you of a crime and brand you with a criminal record for life, we should make that as easy on them as possible and not expend too many resources making them prove it. /s

−1

pengo242 t1_isvu332 wrote

Being tougher on crime is a good thing. No complaints here

6

Sufficient-Job-1013 t1_isvohxc wrote

I’m 100% not a fan of Charles Allen but I can admit the changes you cite here are better than what I’d heard they were planning. This does inspire some confidence.

I was concerned they were trying to get rid of strict penalties for rape and other sexual assault charges.

Hopefully Allen realizes that defunding the police isn’t actually going to help reduce crime, no matter how much we would all love that to be the case.

3

Neato t1_isuh3gz wrote

Higher penalties are pointless. that just ensures more people are slaving away in prisoners for longer. It's not like they rehabilitate and longer sentences do not deter any more than short.

−3

sontow3 t1_isvrjmq wrote

I imagine that you'll immediately dismiss me as evil, or, more condescendingly, as "uninformed" - but the reason I support long prison sentences - life without parole, in fact - for crimes like murder or rape - is not to rehabilitate, it's to prevent those people from ever murdering or raping another innocent person. As long as they never leave prison, everyone outside of prison is safe from them. And for me, that's the critical thing, to keep society safe from proven murderers and rapists.

After that overwhelming priority, I also feel it is morally obligatory that people who murder or rape suffer for what they did. If someone purposefully takes or ruins a life (via rape), then it is morally wrong for them to have a decent life after that. I imagine you disagree - I suggest reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta

And then tell me if you still think that rapists and murderers deserve to live a happy life ever again after what they did.

I also don't believe that it's worth spending a dime rehabilitating serious criminals - the odds of success are too low and society can better spend its attention on fixing the problems that lead some people to become criminals (not all people, of course, and not all criminals either - some people are incredibly evil without environmental influence).

Finally, the evidence I've read suggests that deterrence does in fact work, albeit not as much as I'd like. But that comes last in my order of priorities.

5

[deleted] t1_isty156 wrote

[deleted]

−7

cptjeff t1_isu87s0 wrote

It has an effect, just not as large an effect as certainty of punishment. Modest sentences in a rehabilitative setting but a 100% closure and conviction rate is the ideal.

10

DcDonkey t1_isva3e6 wrote

I will chime in with agreement on the certainty of punishment being a key part of deterrence Maybe, or possibly punishing somebody with a long sentence 3 years after the alleged crime I feel confident in saying will not do much to prevent crime.

Does this mean that the no cash bail movement that activists have been pushing leads to an increase in crime? It's an interesting question and I guess we will know the answer after the studies are finished 10 years from today.

2

cptjeff t1_iswbbft wrote

No cash bail is irrelevant to this, but a good thing done right. Suspects should be held or not held based on assessment of flight or risk to the community, not based on access to wealth. There are certainly activists pushing it who don't want anyone held pre-trial, and those people are morons.

1

sd2301 t1_istznwc wrote

But when you have some of the same people committing crimes, wouldn't putting them away longer necessarily bring down the level of crime in that particular area where that person operated? So, putting aside the deterrent effect, simply putting a criminal away should bring down crime, since that person no longer has the freedom to commit crime.

6

LeoMarius t1_isu8ese wrote

> People don't commit crimes thinking "what's the punishment for this if I get caught".

That's exactly why fare jumping became normalized after the DC Council decriminalized it.

/s

2