Not surprised to see CA in the lead! (San Francisco: to live in, most dangerous)

[Jamesdeen]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

That poster was simply refuting an untrue claim; this is a discussion board.

And is that not engaging?

If you're going to block someone in order to not engage and then go and "refute an untrue claim" through a quote. What's the point in blocking them in the first place?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Finper

That poster always has to have the last word.... it's very immature

lol hello pot meet kettle

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Jamesdeen

And is that not engaging?

If you're going to block someone in order to not engage and then go and "refute an untrue claim" through a quote. What's the point in blocking them in the first place?

2sleepy doesn't like to have her claims debunked. It hurts her feelings to have to understand things like facts. She's seen the SFPD report that showed all category of crime "decriminalized by Prop 47" has spiked in San Francisco, and then she tried to say "Let's wait for another 1-2 years before we make our conclusions".

Let's leave her be until then, when we can show her that crime rose for the next 24 months anyway, then she can just ignore the thread or "claim" to be blocking it.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by Matadora

I think the rise in crime here is due to the recent election where voters agreed to the early release of felons.

Proposition 47 was passed by California voters in 2014. The measure redefined some felony crimes, i.e., those deemed to be not serious or violent, as misdemeanors. Most thefts of property valued at less than $950 were thus downgraded, as was the possession for personal use of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.

Last November we saw the passage of California’s Proposition 57, which authorized the early release of felons whose crimes are deemed nonviolent. These are the types of crimes associated with the felons who have been released early: assault with a deadly weapon, battery with serious injury, solicitation to commit murder, rape of an unconscious person, and burglary of a home.

These two events are most likely why we are seeing a rise in crime here.

Your OP cites stats cumulative from '11-'15. Prop 47 wasnt active until '15. Prop 57 wasnt even voted on until '16, last year. So how could either of them have influenced rising crime from '11-'15? Also three of four other states which passed measures similar to 47 saw crime rates go down. Why would the same measures cause 47 to be the cause of a rise in California even if it had been in effect those years?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matadora

I think the rise in crime here is due to the recent election where voters agreed to the early release of felons.

Proposition 47 was passed by California voters in 2014. The measure redefined some felony crimes, i.e., those deemed to be not serious or violent, as misdemeanors. Most thefts of property valued at less than $950 were thus downgraded, as was the possession for personal use of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.

Last November we saw the passage of California’s Proposition 57, which authorized the early release of felons whose crimes are deemed nonviolent. These are the types of crimes associated with the felons who have been released early: assault with a deadly weapon, battery with serious injury, solicitation to commit murder, rape of an unconscious person, and burglary of a home.

These two events are most likely why we are seeing a rise in crime here.

Prop 57 is undergoing regulatory review. Some aspects of it like increases in credits for obtaining a degree or getting certification in a vocational program were enacted on an emergency basis at the end of March. The other aspects will be phased in over time assuming that the regulations are adopted.
http://prisonlaw.com/wp-content/uplo...il-19-2017.pdf

There doesn't seem to be a causal relationship between any crime increases and prop 47
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/doc..._2010-2016.pdf

Both of these measures, along with AB109 did not come about due to some kind of 'hug a thug' mentality but rather to develop an orderly process to reducing the prison population which the state had been mandated by SCOTUS to do. The Supreme Court warned the state, reduce the prison population and keep it down or we are going to decide who to release and you might not like that. Supreme Court won't delay release of California inmates - CNN.com

So, any arguments or hair on fire claims about how crime has gone 'through the roof' are just a little silly because what we are talking about are three measures designed to keep the most dangerous offenders in jail while complying with the federal mandate. The more relevant discussion than the constant rants about these CJ reform measures might be, how would you have gone about reducing the Calfornia prison population by approximately 40,000 people in order to satisfy the Supreme Court?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Your OP cites stats cumulative from '11-'15. Prop 47 wasnt active until '15. Prop 57 wasnt even voted on until '16, last year. So how could either of them have influenced rising crime from '11-'15? Also three of four other states which passed measures similar to 47 saw crime rates go down. Why would the same measures cause 47 to be the cause of a rise in California even if it had been in effect those years?

You're a huge hypocrite.

In another thread you were telling anyone who would listen how you "trusted the opinion of law enforcement agencies about right wing extremism" and how they saw right wingers are more dangerous than ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Yet here you are in this thread defending Prop 47, 57, and AB109 even though the LA Sheriff's Department, San Francisco PD, and Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys have all said that Prop 47 HAS LEAD to more property crime, and Prop 57 will lead to more crime:

An explosion of California property crimes

So basically you're a dishonest person who only trust the opinion of law enforcement when it fits your narrative, or basically you'll quote or say anything as long as it agrees with you. What a dishonest, valueless joke.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You're a huge hypocrite.

In another thread you were telling anyone who would listen how you "trusted the opinion of law enforcement agencies about right wing extremism" and how they saw right wingers are more dangerous than ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Yet here you are in this thread defending Prop 47, 57, and AB109 even though the LA Sheriff's Department, San Francisco PD, and Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys have all said that Prop 47 HAS LEAD to more property crime, and Prop 57 will lead to more crime:

An explosion of California property crimes

So basically you're a dishonest person who only trust the opinion of law enforcement when it fits your narrative, or basically you'll quote or say anything as long as it agrees with you. What a dishonest, valueless joke.

Didnt actually defend them in the least. Merely reported the factual observations of the possible effects of each on stats citing time periods before they were enacted or could be effective overall statistically. Do you disagree with the fact that 47 had only just gone i to effect the last year of the four years cited statistically - and that 57 wasnt even voted on until a year after the last year of the stats?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Didnt actually defend them in the least. Merely reported the factual observations of the possible effects of each on stats citing time periods before they were enacted or could be effective overall statistically. Do you disagree with the fact that 47 had only just gone i to effect the last year of the four years cited statistically - and that 57 wasnt even voted on until a year after the last year of the stats?

There are lots of new statistics out there right now. Fact: LA, SF, and SD have shown huge spikes in property crime since the passage of Prop 47. Is the data still early? Sure. But logically, if you reduce the penalties for something, it follows that criminals would be more willing to engage in those crimes for which the penalties were reduced.

For Prop 57, I never made any claim about statistics, but I do know that following basic game theory, we will probably see a spike in the same crime categories for which penalties were reduced, just like we're seeing with Prop 47. In fact, do you want to make a friendly cash wager on 2017-2018 crime trends in CA? My guess is you won't because you know the truth.

This isn't even a debate about whether crime will increase or decrease, at least it wasn't for the democrat politicians that pushed this garbage. They debated Prop 47 (and 57) on pure BUDGETARY COST. e.g, is the cost of incarcerating people who commit crimes in these categories worth it? They all KNEW crime in those categories would increase across the state, so I don't know why you're even trying to debate from that angle (probably because you're ignorant about the root of why Prop 47 was floated in the first place).

[taimaishu]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

LOL...

I think it's all the Texans moving here to be honest.

Why do you just whine about CA and remain if you don't like it? You never have anything good to say about this state.

There was one poster from TN who lived here two years and whined on CD, but to his credit he packed his bags and left.

So if you don't find an increase in crime scary, than you must find it to be a good thing? And please don't flatter yourself, you don't get me bent out of shape.

I just don't get why you moved to CA, and remain as per your posts you do nothing but bash the state.

Exactly. People from the Top 10 most crime ridden states are exporting their crimes here to CA. CA does need a border. But it's to protect US from the people from the dirty south!

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

There are lots of new statistics out there right now. Fact: LA, SF, and SD have shown huge spikes in property crime since the passage of Prop 47. Is the data still early? Sure. But logically, if you reduce the penalties for something, it follows that criminals would be more willing to engage in those crimes for which the penalties were reduced.

For Prop 57, I never made any claim about statistics, but I do know that following basic game theory, we will probably see a spike in the same crime categories for which penalties were reduced, just like we're seeing with Prop 47. In fact, do you want to make a friendly cash wager on 2017-2018 crime trends in CA? My guess is you won't because you know the truth.

This isn't even a debate about whether crime will increase or decrease, at least it wasn't for the democrat politicians that pushed this garbage. They debated Prop 47 (and 57) on pure BUDGETARY COST. e.g, is the cost of incarcerating people who commit crimes in these categories worth it? They all KNEW crime in those categories would increase across the state, so I don't know why you're even trying to debate from that angle (probably because you're ignorant about the root of why Prop 47 was floated in the first place).

So now you endeavor to ceate a new tangential conversation (to keep up as high a level of controversy as you can). Fire away. Whatever. Every one of those points you raise have been raised and debunked numerous times elsewhere on the forum previously. Not interested in more rehash.

The point as per posts in question has been answered: those stats cited in the OP have nothing to reflect from 47, 57 ...