When will democrats realize that being nice to criminals doesnt make them nice. (1 Viewer)

[urbanhack]

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/high-incarceration-rates-may-not-help-us-citizens-feel-safer/

 

[moleculo]

In California, yes - https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/shoplifting-california-prop-47-reduced-penalties/

Remember this episode?  We landed here because people lost their collective minds over private firms conducting business as usual.

Edit: In case you doubt that this is a direct, causal response.

In either of these articles, I don't see a cabal of democrats dictating the bathroom policy of Starbucks nor shrink reduction.  You can claim that democrat led policies led to retail operations to choose a different way to do business, but that's not what I asked.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In either of these articles, I don't see a cabal of democrats dictating the bathroom policy of Starbucks nor shrink reduction.  You can claim that democrat led policies led to retail operations to choose a different way to do business, but that's not what I asked.

Seems like kind of a pedantic distinction.  I mean, was anybody suggesting that Schumer was personally crafting legislation along these lines?  This is all state and local politics.

 

[moleculo]

Seems like kind of a pedantic distinction.  I mean, was anybody suggesting that Schumer was personally crafting legislation along these lines?  This is all state and local politics.

  @FairWarningwas implying the problem is "Store Policies recently changed, can’t chase them out of the store is a big deal now."  I'm asking if there is some new law in place (obviously from democrats, see thread title) that prevents that, or if it's a choice made by the proprietor.

If you are going to blame the democrats for the crime increase, I'd like to know why - exactly which law is the problem.

I will concede the California law that @FairWarningis a good example, but I would remind the audience that organized retail theft existed well before that article was written.  Speaking of which, that article is now 6 years old.  I wonder if businesses have adapted.

 

[menobrown]

We are #1 in incarcerations in the world.  Around 1.8M people are in the jail in the US. How many more in prison would it take for you to feel safe?

Up to approximately 2.1m and estimated to be 25% of the worlds population. It's a horrendously broke system IMO that should be heavily dialed down to removing violent/sexual offenders off the streets and dialing back incarcerating those who don't fall into that category.

 

[Insein]

I came in here expecting to hear about how the Dems and the Justice Department are being way to soft when it come to Trump and the January 6th insurrection. 

We're talking about real criminals here.

 

[parasaurolophus]

  @FairWarningwas implying the problem is "Store Policies recently changed, can’t chase them out of the store is a big deal now."  I'm asking if there is some new law in place (obviously from democrats, see thread title) that prevents that, or if it's a choice made by the proprietor.

If you are going to blame the democrats for the crime increase, I'd like to know why - exactly which law is the problem.

I will concede the California law that @FairWarningis a good example, but I would remind the audience that organized retail theft existed well before that article was written.  Speaking of which, that article is now 6 years old.  I wonder if businesses have adapted.

Why would you chase somebody down that will just get let go? 

 

[Stealthycat]

Hmmm let me see here. You’re proposing having a conversation where you talk about  stats and I talk about real world actual experience over the course of my entire life in said city.  Yeah, no.  

I didn't think so.

Hey, want to talk about my city of Little Rock/North Little Rock AR ??   I've never been attacked here - must be a fantastic city, sign you up for dinner/ball game ??? 

 

[moleculo]

Why would you chase somebody down that will just get let go? 

the reason they don't chase them down is liability.  If someone gets hurt (store employee, innocent bystander, shoplifter), the store could be liable.  Is the risk of a lawsuit (including legal fees even if you are in the clear) worth it over a pack of gum?

It's a business decision that stores make.  There are other things stores can do to reduce shrink, but they cost money, and no one wants to spend money.  Much easier to just blame politicians.

 

[FairWarning]

  @FairWarningwas implying the problem is "Store Policies recently changed, can’t chase them out of the store is a big deal now."  I'm asking if there is some new law in place (obviously from democrats, see thread title) that prevents that, or if it's a choice made by the proprietor.

If you are going to blame the democrats for the crime increase, I'd like to know why - exactly which law is the problem.

I will concede the California law that @FairWarningis a good example, but I would remind the audience that organized retail theft existed well before that article was written.  Speaking of which, that article is now 6 years old.  I wonder if businesses have adapted.

I work in them all day.  The pros know the store can’t do anything and cops can’t chase unless they reach a certain monetary threshold.  I want to say that there was a Walgreens where a security guard shot at a thief, and that was what evolved into this law.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Why would you chase somebody down that will just get let go? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5rsGHdDww

 

[parasaurolophus]

the reason they don't chase them down is liability.  If someone gets hurt (store employee, innocent bystander, shoplifter), the store could be liable.  Is the risk of a lawsuit (including legal fees even if you are in the clear) worth it over a pack of gum?

It's a business decision that stores make.  There are other things stores can do to reduce shrink, but they cost money, and no one wants to spend money.  Much easier to just blame politicians.

Sure. But obviously the liability calculus has changed. What changed?

A more litigious society and less reward for catching a criminal that stole from you. Since they will just get let go. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So much of this tracks back to drug addiction which tracks back to the massive pipeline on our southern border.  That is the blue team so desiring to stuff the channels with new incipient voters that they're willing to blithely overlook the devastation the concurrent meth and fentanyl is causing.

I would say that so much of this tracks back to Nixon kicking off his War on Drugs which has then been made worst with the response to crack.  The devastation caused by synthetic drugs of today is largely a function of trying to "wage war" for fifty years and only dealing with the public health crisis with one side "kicking and screaming" about it being an "essential benefit" in health policies for about one decade.   Lets shift the resources from our militarization of police forces to dealing with the health crisis.  Lets bring these markets out of the underground and into the light so we can have a fighting chance to even see what needs to be fixed.

 

[Shula-holic]

the reason they don't chase them down is liability.  If someone gets hurt (store employee, innocent bystander, shoplifter), the store could be liable.  Is the risk of a lawsuit (including legal fees even if you are in the clear) worth it over a pack of gum?

It's a business decision that stores make.  There are other things stores can do to reduce shrink, but they cost money, and no one wants to spend money.  Much easier to just blame politicians.

You're right on the liability, the companies want no part of that.  However, it's actually much easier to just close the doors, like Walgreens.  Then when a community gets under served, I'm guessing those companies will then get the blame.  If you operate today in a high shrinkage area, especially in a locale that is lax on enforcing property crime, you have to be extremely profitable on the legitimate business you do get in order to justify keeping the doors open.  I've seen some folks on other media platforms argue that the Walgreens and CVS's of the world should get no pity because of their pricing in these areas, etc, but the more of this that goes on the higher the prices must go.

 

[Rich Conway]

In California, yes - https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/shoplifting-california-prop-47-reduced-penalties/

Out of curiosity, what do you believe is the the appropriate dollar figure where shoplifting should transition from misdemeanor to felony?

 

[rockaction]

I would say that so much of this tracks back to Nixon kicking off his War on Drugs 

The crazy incarceration rates we have are due to the War on Drugs and the black market services that arise due to it. It's been a spectacularly failed policy, all designed to protect people from themselves, only it thinks doing so by incarcerating them and getting them into the criminal justice system is a good idea. It's terribly flawed. We would not have the highest incarceration rate in the Western world and would not be a custodial democracy if not for the War on Drugs. 

And we're taking away the wrong lessons by electing progressive D.A.'s that see racial results stemming from policing and trying to change those results by decriminalizing actual crimes against humanity. We need to change policies about consensual acts, not change policies about violent crime or property crime. 

 

[FairWarning]

Out of curiosity, what do you believe is the the appropriate dollar figure where shoplifting should transition from misdemeanor to felony?

For a 1st timer, maybe $250-500.  A repeat offender, $100 because they didn’t learn their lesson.  
 

If you owned a store Rich, how would you handle a shoplifter?  

 

[Rich Conway]

For a 1st timer, maybe $250-500.  A repeat offender, $100 because they didn’t learn their lesson.  

Are you aware that in Texas, a state currently run by the extreme right, shoplifting becomes a felony at $750 for first-time offenders?  Is that really such a huge difference from the $950 in California that is giving folks fits?

If you owned a store Rich, how would you handle a shoplifter?  

It really depends on what I'm selling, how frequently the suspected shoplifting occurs, local laws on liability, and all sorts of other factors.  I know people hate the "locked behind the case" approach, but it seems to work pretty well.

 

[FairWarning]

Are you aware that in Texas, a state currently run by the extreme right, shoplifting becomes a felony at $750 for first-time offenders?  Is that really such a huge difference from the $950 in California that is giving folks fits?

It really depends on what I'm selling, how frequently the suspected shoplifting occurs, local laws on liability, and all sorts of other factors.  I know people hate the "locked behind the case" approach, but it seems to work pretty well.

Idk if Texas has the shoplifting problems though.  It doesn’t really matter what California does because they just get out right away.

 

[Sand]

Lets bring these markets out of the underground and into the light so we can have a fighting chance to even see what needs to be fixed.

Not arguing your previous points, because there is a lot of merit there.  I always wondered about this.  Ok, bring these markets and producers out of the underground.  What fool is going to setup a meth factory?  Given our litigious society (heck, we want to sue gun companies on the basis that guns exist) there is no way that this kind of market could ever exist in the light.  

I don't see a way around that, either.

 

[Rich Conway]

Idk if Texas has the shoplifting problems though.  It doesn’t really matter what California does because they just get out right away.

I don't know if Texas does either.  That's exactly the point, though.  Conservative are quick to scream that California's $950 misdemeanor law is the cause of unfettered shoplifting, while ignoring the fact that lots of other states have similar or even more liberal misdemeanor shoplifting laws.  It's $1500 in Georgia.  If the dollar amount is the cause, why don't we hear about these issues in other, higher dollar amount states?  Stands to reason that it's not actually the dollar amount of this law that causes shoplifting.

 

[Rich Conway]

Not arguing your previous points, because there is a lot of merit there.  I always wondered about this.  Ok, bring these markets and producers out of the underground.  What fool is going to setup a meth factory?  Given our litigious society (heck, we want to sue gun companies on the basis that guns exist) there is no way that this kind of market could ever exist in the light.  

I don't see a way around that, either.

Why not?  Tobacco companies exist.  Sugar companies exist.  Alcohol companies exist.  They're regulated.  Why couldn't meth companies be similarly regulated?

 

[Sand]

Why not?  Tobacco companies exist.  Sugar companies exist.  Alcohol companies exist.  They're regulated.  Why couldn't meth companies be similarly regulated?

They'd be sued out of existence the moment they started up.  IMO, of course.

 

[timschochet]

Some Democrats are too soft on crime. Most aren’t. Some Republicans are too tough. Most aren’t. 
 

Politically however it doesn’t matter, because “Democrats are soft on crime” has been a winning issue Republicans for the last 50 years or so. So it’s going to keep coming up. 

 

[Rich Conway]

They'd be sued out of existence the moment they started up.  IMO, of course.

On what grounds?  Under the hypothetical, we're assuming that meth would be legal, likely regulated for adults only, and with other regulations along the lines of those for tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, etc.  I don't know of many cases where individuals successfully sue alcohol and tobacco manufacturers.  There have been class action suits, but those have typically been for misleading advertising, marketing to kids, concealing data on the harmful effects, etc.  I would think we can assume Joe's Meth Company won't be doing those things (at least not at the beginning).

 

[Navin Johnson]

They'd be sued out of existence the moment they started up.  IMO, of course.

For what.  I can't imagine starting a meth company and thinking people aren't going to use if you tell them al of the hazards.

 

[Sand]

For what.  I can't imagine starting a meth company and thinking people aren't going to use if you tell them al of the hazards.

See:  Gun manufacturers and the attempts to open them up to litigation.

 

[Sand]

Some Democrats are too soft on crime. Most aren’t. Some Republicans are too tough. Most aren’t. 
 

Politically however it doesn’t matter, because “Democrats are soft on crime” has been a winning issue Republicans for the last 50 years or so. So it’s going to keep coming up. 

The issue in Cali isn't that first timers are let out pretty easy.  It's that career criminals know they are essentially immune to prosecution and run thieving rings with impunity.  We're not talking folks who are feeding starving children at home.  I'm all for a bit of forgiveness, but after 13 arrests for the same thing those in charge should think about putting some teeth into enforcement.

Right now the pendulum has swing way, way too far toward leniency in some of these cases.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Some Democrats are too soft on crime. Most aren’t. Some Republicans are too tough. Most aren’t. 
 

Politically however it doesn’t matter, because “Democrats are soft on crime” has been a winning issue Republicans for the last 50 years or so. So it’s going to keep coming up. 

Same thing happens with economic management. EVERY single Republican administration of the last 50 yearsthats handed over to Democrats drives the economy into the ditch and they also inherit a healthy and prosperous economy from Democrats....except for Carter

Ford gave Carter 1976

George H W Bush gave Clinton a recession

George W Bush gave Obama the GFC

Trump gave Biden a Covid ravaged economy that had been looted by the wealthy.

Clinton and Obama gave their successors booming and thriving economies. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

See:  Gun manufacturers and the attempts to open them up to litigation.

Those aren't end user casualties.  I don't see the families of DUI victims suing beer companies.

 

[Stealthycat]

See:  Gun manufacturers and the attempts to open them up to litigation.

agreed, need to sue automobile manufacturers every time someone uses a car wrong

back to the topic - 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-teen-released-caught-video-assault-cops-open-robbery-case

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-wearing-ankle-monitor-robs-target-store-security-does-nothing

 

[moleculo]

You're right on the liability, the companies want no part of that.  However, it's actually much easier to just close the doors, like Walgreens.  Then when a community gets under served, I'm guessing those companies will then get the blame.  If you operate today in a high shrinkage area, especially in a locale that is lax on enforcing property crime, you have to be extremely profitable on the legitimate business you do get in order to justify keeping the doors open.  I've seen some folks on other media platforms argue that the Walgreens and CVS's of the world should get no pity because of their pricing in these areas, etc, but the more of this that goes on the higher the prices must go.

the other things they can do is keep all merch behind glass, hire more associates, etc.  There are no easy answers here.

 

[Ilov80s]

No way I am reading what is certainly a trainwreck of a thread. My prison take:

1. There are some crimes and some criminals that need to be behind bars for very very long periods of time. Often for life. There is such a thing as a bad seed or as someone so damaged that they need to be kept away from society. 

2. I don't believe in revenge. The people above  should live out their lives in a simple life but it should be not a cruel or hostile existence. They just should be kept away from the rest of the world permanently. Prison isn't meant to be hell. 

3. Non-violent crimes, drug related crimes need to be treated totally different from the violent crimes of above. They shouldn't be held in the same prisons, jailed in the same jails, etc. 

Parsing that out is difficult but I would think most people can come to come agreement on the above. The details there is what is a challenge. Hopefully there can be discussion here about what crimes deserve life or a significant chunk of? What to do with people convicted of non-violent crimes? 

 

[FairWarning]

 What to do with people convicted or non-violent crimes? 

We need to come up with a deterrant.  If not, it happens over and over.   Most anything is better than DA's lessening crimes on repeat offenders because they don't want to ruin the person's life.  What about the innocent people who were affected?  

 

[Ilov80s]

We need to come up with a deterrant.  If not, it happens over and over.   Most anything is better than DA's lessening crimes on repeat offenders because they don't want to ruin the person's life.  What about the innocent people who were affected?  

Deter something that has already happened?  I am kidding- sort of . We have deterrents in place. As someone who deals regularly with young people experimenting with breaking the rules, I think deterrents work. However, we are dealing with the people for with whom deterrents don't work. If deterrents worked, they would not have committed the crime. 

I think people who have non-violent crimes committed against them should be financially compensated by those who committed the crime. 

 

[FairWarning]

Deter something that has already happened?  I am kidding- sort of . We have deterrents in place. As someone who deals regularly with young people experimenting with breaking the rules, I think deterrents work. However, we are dealing with the people for with whom deterrents don't work. If deterrents worked, they would not have committed the crime. 

I think people who have non-violent crimes committed against them should be financially compensated by those who committed the crime. 

There was a link I posted the other day about a shoplifter in Chicago who was out on bond, then committed 18 more offenses, someone in their 40's-50's.  

You're doing Gods work dealing with kids who can be easily influenced.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Deter something that has already happened?  I am kidding- sort of . We have deterrents in place. As someone who deals regularly with young people experimenting with breaking the rules, I think deterrents work. However, we are dealing with the people for with whom deterrents don't work. If deterrents worked, they would not have committed the crime. 

I think people who have non-violent crimes committed against them should be financially compensated by those who committed the crime. 

For many of these people there are no deterrents. 

They can commit crimes daily. They usually wont get caught. If they do get caught they get out right away. Then they go back committing crimes and usually not getting caught or getting out right away. 

 

[Ilov80s]

There was a link I posted the other day about a shoplifter in Chicago who was out on bond, then committed 18 more offenses, someone in their 40's-50's.  

You're doing Gods work dealing with kids who can be easily influenced.  

I don't know the story so this is all based on your info here. If someone in their 40s is arrested for shoplifting and they don't have any other significant recent criminal record, do you think they should not be let out on bond?

 

[Ilov80s]

For many of these people there are no deterrents. 

They can commit crimes daily. They usually wont get caught. If they do get caught they get out right away. Then they go back committing crimes and usually not getting caught or getting out right away. 

I agree, sentences should be compounding. Early efforts should be made to offer alternatives but some people will continue. As long as it's non-violent, I am not super worried about them but they should be made by to work their debts off before they are fully given their freedoms back. 

 

[rockaction]

George H W Bush gave Clinton a recession

You could really argue that Bush was replaced by Clinton because of the severity of that recession. You could also argue that H.W.'s tax hike, proposed by Democrats, caused said recession. 

Lots of moving parts with that one. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I agree, sentences should be compounding. Early efforts should be made to offer alternatives but some people will continue. As long as it's non-violent, I am not super worried about them but they should be made by to work their debts off before they are fully given their freedoms back. 

Have you ever had your car stolen?

how about your house broken into?

How about gone to the vending machine at work and encountered a person off the street destroying it to steal the money?

These are all non violent crimes that are incredibly unsettling to encounter.  

of course there are worse, but these are non violent crimes that would fall into the no big deal bucket. 

Massive extra expense for society to hear not to mention some fear factors. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Have you ever had your car stolen? 

how about your house broken into? 

How about gone to the vending machine at work and encountered a person off the street destroying it to steal the money?

These are all non violent crimes that are incredibly unsettling to encounter.  

of course there are worse, but these are non violent crimes that would fall into the no big deal bucket. 

Massive extra expense for society to hear not to mention some fear factors. 

I will say no to all of those crimes. I am also not trying to downplay those crimes. Stolen cars should be prosecuted and those violated should be repaid. However, look at the incredible amount of violent crime we have.  Rape, murder, kidnapping, armed robbery.  That is where our attention truly needs to start.  Those are the criminals I am most concerned with getting off the streets. 

 

[FairWarning]

I don't know the story so this is all based on your info here. If someone in their 40s is arrested for shoplifting and they don't have any other significant recent criminal record, do you think they should not be let out on bond?

It was her 12th offense, then picked up 18 more.  Her excuse was she didn't know they had security.

 

[Ilov80s]

It was her 12th offense, then picked up 18 more.  Her excuse was she didn't know they had security.

Well then no they should not be released so quickly off a 12th offense. That is easy. We shouldn't give up on them and treat them like we treat murderers or sex criminals but they can't just be sent back out on their own. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Hopefully there can be discussion here about what crimes deserve life or a significant chunk of? What to do with people convicted of non-violent crimes? 

 

[timschochet]

Hopefully there can be discussion here about what crimes deserve life or a significant chunk of? What to do with people convicted of non-violent crimes? 

See I’ve always thought that a big part of the problem is that we even have sentencing guidelines in the first place. I would prefer each case to be looked at individually. As @parasaurolophus correctly points out, there are certain non-violent crimes that may deserve more jail time depending on the situation. There are also more serious crimes that may deserve less jail time depending on the circumstances. 

 

[Ilov80s]

See I’ve always thought that a big part of the problem is that we even have sentencing guidelines in the first place. I would prefer each case to be looked at individually. As @parasaurolophus correctly points out, there are certain non-violent crimes that may deserve more jail time depending on the situation. There are also more serious crimes that may deserve less jail time depending on the circumstances. 

I agree completely. It also requires a populace that pays attention and I mean pays attention more than just to 1 or 2 high profile cases. 

 

[General Malaise]

Criminals are bad people. They dont just become good people when you let them get away with crime. 

Every one of you that bought into the myth of jails being filled with unlucky dudes just caught with a joint trying steal to feed their families has helped make our neighborhoods less safe.

Thanks a lot. We really appreciate it. 

I have good news for you.  The republican party is about to control the house, the executive office and our judicial branch.  So an easy solution to crime in this country is right around the corner.  

I'm looking forward to you guys fixing crime.  It's going to be great.  I will be able to go outside again.  

And please, don't back away from implementing a more widespread death penalty so we aren't housing too many criminals.  Hell, I'd hang every rapist and child molester in this country.  So when you guys take over and fix crime, go all the way man.  

Better days ahead. I look forward to them. 

 

[General Malaise]

Have you ever had your car stolen?

how about your house broken into?

How about gone to the vending machine at work and encountered a person off the street destroying it to steal the money?

These are all non violent crimes that are incredibly unsettling to encounter.  

of course there are worse, but these are non violent crimes that would fall into the no big deal bucket. 

Massive extra expense for society to hear not to mention some fear factors. 

You're a Colorado guy, right?  Did you read this?  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/06/bus-denver-pendemic-violence/

This country is a mess right now.  Plenty of blame to go around but I'd encourage everybody to read this.  We are ####ed.  And I mean it, just absolutely screwed.  We lack the infrastructure to repair us back to health.  It's too far gone and my only regret is putting 5 kids on to this planet.  

 

[Stealthycat]

hold police/judges/jury/parole board accountable for the crimes people commit who are let out early or let back onto the streets