U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2017, 12:41 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 8,630,983 times
Reputation: 6483

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
That could be because San Francisco like LA and Orange County decided to write "tickets" for misdemeanor offenses. Again, more individuals were not released due to prop 47 or AB109 neither have anything to do with early releases.

I fail to find any logic behind your claim that a percentage increase or decrease in crime means more or less in a smaller county than it does in a larger one. And in spite of your claims about Solano County, Vallejo and to a lesser degree Fairfield have had stubbornly high rates of crime for many years, so a decrease in crime is significant.

Prop 47 only affects property crimes and drug possession. The penalties for violent crimes were not impacted so there is no rationale for blaming an increase in violent crime on prop 47.
Because people who commit property and drug crimes, which are easier to prosecute, never commit violent crimes, which are harder to prosecute.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2017, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
38,104 posts, read 18,069,761 times
Reputation: 28006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
How about it's because people who shouldn't be on the streets in the first place are simply committing crimes?
Why do you have to obfuscate your own logic to the point that your are missing the forest for the tree?
Seriously, you're literally blaming the largest law enforcement jurisdictions in the state for not doing MORE to curb crime from people who YOU ARE DEFENDING for lighter sentencing guidelines. You're literally arguing against yourself from a logical standpoint. It's fascinating.
I'm advocating for arresting people who commit crimes, booking them into jail and requiring that the post bond if they want to be released because doing those things has always served as a deterrent to at least some offenders.

Of course there are people on the street who shouldn't be, but there is no evidence that either AB109 or Prop 47 has caused that.

And yes I'm accusing some of the largest law enforcement agencies of malfeasance. They need to quit playing political games and do what they were hired to do, enforce the law, and that goes for some of the courts like Sacramento County which has decided not to prosecute misdemeanor fraud cases.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
38,104 posts, read 18,069,761 times
Reputation: 28006
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Because people who commit property and drug crimes, which are easier to prosecute, never commit violent crimes, which are harder to prosecute.
Some commit violent crimes, but far less often than those who have previously committed a violent crime. that's been confirmed through risk assessment scoring.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:28 PM
 
6,079 posts, read 3,596,873 times
Reputation: 5953
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
umm yeah except for one thing, your numbers don't work.

The cost of incarceration from your Vera source is 39 billion and from your NIH source the economic loss from crime is 15 billion, so on a purely rational economic basis we would be 24 billion dollars ahead if we quit putting people in prison, or from your NIH source, 114 billion ahead if we quit arresting, prosecuting and trying criminals which costs 179 billion.
Your misinterpreting the numbers. Not all of the 179 billion is purely from incarceration (but you probably knew that and are just being dishonest about your interpretation). It also includes POLICE and the COST of enforcement.

Also, I love this weasel logic. "We would have less incarceration cost if we stop incarcerating criminals".

No duh. But then we'd have some weird MAX MAX scenario (or the Purge) where people would butcher each other in the streets because they would have ZERO fear of any consequences.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
38,104 posts, read 18,069,761 times
Reputation: 28006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post

Did AB109/Prop 47 allow MORE prisoners to be released into the public earlier than they would have pre-AB109/Prop 47? Will Prop 57 do the same?

Yes or no?
AB109 did not include any provisions for early release. In 2013 AB264 added the opportunity for AB109 inmates (non violent, non sex offenders) to earn up to 6 weeks off their sentence per year for milestone credits which allow inmates who participate in educational or vocational training up to 6 weeks off their sentence per year.

Prop 47 since it was retroactive caused some inmates in jails and prisons to be resentenced if the offense for which they were serving time was one that was reduced to a misdemeanor per prop 47

Prop 57 is designed to release inmates early, I would have expected you to know that. It will allow some non-violent offenders to be reviewed by a parole board for early release but only after they serve the entire sentence for their controlling case but before they served the time imposed by "add on" or "enhancements" that run consecutive to the controlling charge.

Prop 57 will also increase milestone credits, for non violent, non sex offenders, which are currently set at a maximum of 6 weeks per year. Until regulations are published there is no way to no way of know what the increase will be.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
38,104 posts, read 18,069,761 times
Reputation: 28006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Your misinterpreting the numbers. Not all of the 179 billion is purely from incarceration (but you probably knew that and are just being dishonest about your interpretation). It also includes POLICE and the COST of enforcement.
Also, I love this weasel logic. "We would have less incarceration cost if we stop incarcerating criminals".
No duh. But then we'd have some weird MAX MAX scenario (or the Purge) where people would butcher each other in the streets because they would have ZERO fear of any consequences.
I used your figures...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:34 PM
 
6,079 posts, read 3,596,873 times
Reputation: 5953
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post

Prop 47 since it was retroactive caused some inmates in jails and prisons to be resentenced if the offense for which they were serving time was one that was reduced to a misdemeanor per prop 47
Good, so you admit that people who were in PRISON were released earlier than their pre-Prop 47 sentence right into the public.

I'm glad you could be honest one time in this thread.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:35 PM
 
6,079 posts, read 3,596,873 times
Reputation: 5953
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I used your figures...
Yes and totally missed the point that $179 billion includes law enforcement (not just asset loss as you tried to falsely claim), to which I corrected you (unless you're trying to argue that we should not budget for law enforcement at all). Whether you include incarceration of crime or not in the $179 billion figure, the aggregate effect of crime (in dollars) is still LESS than the annual amount spent on incarceration ALONE.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:39 PM
 
6,079 posts, read 3,596,873 times
Reputation: 5953
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Some commit violent crimes, but far less often than those who have previously committed a violent crime. that's been confirmed through risk assessment scoring.
Complete crap study by a leftist institution.

Risk assessment scoring is not based in reality. According to NIH, and Pew Research, the best predictor of criminal activity is... guess what... people who have a history of committing crime.

It's really that simple.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 02:14 PM
 
18,173 posts, read 12,608,237 times
Reputation: 9235
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
Complete crap study by a leftist institution.

Risk assessment scoring is not based in reality. According to NIH, and Pew Research, the best predictor of criminal activity is... guess what... people who have a history of committing crime.

It's really that simple.
True and no avoiding that reality. If they let them out, lower the sentence, etc, what are they doing to help them to move away from, shall we say the tendency, to commit crime? Reducing the penalty encourages it, not discourages it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top