[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

And which areas of Florida have the highest crime? Left leaning areas. One of the most conservative large cities in Florida, Miami (because Cubans are *very* Republican) has seen insane declines in crime the past 24 months, effectively bucking the trend of large liberal run cities nationwide.

The mayor of Miami has been a Republican for 13 years, so, please don't cherry-pick-- and Miami remains a high-crime city. Pasadena is one of the safest cities in the country and the mayor is a Democrat. This is also true of San Jose and numerous other cities. Cherry picking takes us nowhere.

This ground has been covered numerous times. Almost 2/3rds of US cities are run by Democrats-- so it only stands to reason that high crime cities are run by Democrats. And you're doing exactly what the FBI warns against-- oversimplifying the data. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...s/cius-summary)

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Look, I don’t care what political party Malloy and Lamont belong to. What the former did absolutely decimated the safety and well being of suburban Connecticut, as was discussed previously, and that the latter and his political allies refuse to address it in a proper manner is the issue. They made it a party issue before any state resident did.

To deny that Democrats are traditionally light on crime is ludicrous.

"Decimated the safety and well-being of suburban Connecticut. " That's a tad dramatic, no?

There's no doubt that criminal justice reform is needed. The over-incarceration of minority individuals, the war on drugs, private prison system scandals, and numerous other factors have caused distrust of the criminal justice system. The reaction has been the reforms you are now seeing. Some of those reforms have gone too far, absolutely. At the same time, serious problems remain with the administration of justice.

We should all be striving for a better system, not simply a more punitive one. If we were serious, we'd include a deep discussion of the antecedents of crime, which if positively impacted, would solve more crime than any punitive measures.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

The mayor of Miami has been a Republican for 13 years, so, please don't cherry-pick-- and Miami remains a high-crime city. Pasadena is one of the safest cities in the country and the mayor is a Democrat. This is also true of San Jose and numerous other cities. Cherry picking takes us nowhere.

This ground has been covered numerous times. Almost 2/3rds of US cities are run by Democrats-- so it only stands to reason that high crime cities are run by Democrats. And you're doing exactly what the FBI warns against-- oversimplifying the data. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...s/cius-summary)

Nowhere did I state Miami was low crime, but you cannot refute Miami’s double digit percentage drop as crime surges nationwide (again, irrefutable). Why is Miami different? Because the local DA’s office holds people accountable for their crimes. Connecticut did, but no longer can because processes have been changed under liberal politicians.

It’s tough to argue “oversimplification” when one party has been vocal in supporting juvenile [and adult] catch and release, no bail, defunding and/or fund shifting of police departments, etc. It’s no coincidence this has resulted in a surge of crime, given the extreme rate of recidivism. If Miami did any of this, guaranteed they’d be experiencing the same crime surge seen in other areas.

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

"Decimated the safety and well-being of suburban Connecticut. " That's a tad dramatic, no?

There's no doubt that criminal justice reform is needed. The over-incarceration of minority individuals, the war on drugs, private prison system scandals, and numerous other factors have caused distrust of the criminal justice system. The reaction has been the reforms you are now seeing. Some of those reforms have gone too far, absolutely. At the same time, serious problems remain with the administration of justice.

We should all be striving for a better system, not simply a more punitive one. If we were serious, we'd include a deep discussion of the antecedents of crime, which if positively impacted, would solve more crime than any punitive measures.

Not dramatic in the least if you pay attention to what’s actually happened under Malloy, and how it’s affecting the quality of life under Lamont, who added fuel to the fire (we’ve had this discussion already, so reference that many pages back). You seem to have a lot of answers, but you still need to understand that party line politicians pushing their agendas is a cause and effect that’s difficult to argue.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

If you want serious solutions to real problems, you have to look beyond silly political labels

We should all be striving for a better system, not simply a more punitive one. If we were serious, we'd include a deep discussion of the antecedents of crime, which if positively impacted, would solve more crime than any punitive measures.

They already tried these. They looked at everything, under every nook and cranny. Not a stone was left unturned, and it all failed. Time and time again. Too punitive, too lenient, they looked over the antecedents with a fine tooth comb, and guess what? nothing worked. We've talked about this, hundreds of pages thousands of posts ago here.
It's up to the States now to decide. We put silly political labels on because that's what everything is now.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

They already tried these. They looked at everything, under every nook and cranny. Not a stone was left unturned, and it all failed. Time and time again. Too punitive, too lenient, they looked over the antecedents with a fine tooth comb, and guess what? nothing worked. We've talked about this, hundreds of pages thousands of posts ago here.

Thanks, Steve. I didn't get the notice on this.

I wasn't aware generational poverty had been eliminated...
That racism had been eliminated from our justice system and sentencing...
That the unintended consequences of the war on drugs had been rectified...
That private prisons (and the abuses that seemingly go with them) had been eliminated...


The solution isn't more punishment alone, simply because you're impatient. There's a difference between vengeance and justice. If you truly want that latter you'd look at long-term, comprehensive solutions that address antecedents, as well as sentencing.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Thanks, Steve. I didn't get the notice on this.

I wasn't aware generational poverty had been eliminated...
That racism had been eliminated from our justice system and sentencing...
That the unintended consequences of the war on drugs had been rectified...
That private prisons (and the abuses that seemingly go with them) had been eliminated...


The solution isn't more punishment alone, simply because you're impatient. There's a difference between vengeance and justice. If you truly want that latter you'd look at long-term, comprehensive solutions that address antecedents, as well as sentencing.

It’s easy to believe you have all the answers, but unfortunately, it’s not a one size fits all. Part of the problem is that everyone thinks it is.

Now can we get back to discussing juvenile crime increase in CT?

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

You seem to have a lot of answers, but you still need to understand that party line politicians pushing their agendas is a cause and effect that’s difficult to argue.

My answer is to study antecedents that just about every sociologist walking the Earth believes predicate crime and be comprehensive in the approach we take. That seems completely reasonable. I'm not even sure what your issue with my position is besides a reflexive disagreement based on your misunderstanding of my political beliefs.

I keep writing about issues that actually lead to crime. You keep writing about Democrats and Republicans...

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It’s easy to believe you have all the answers, but unfortunately, it’s not a one size fits all. Part of the problem is that everyone thinks it is.

This is why I keep advocating a comprehensive approach.

Again, I can't figure out what you're actually disagreeing with.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

My answer is to study antecedents that just about every sociologist walking the Earth believes predicate crime and be comprehensive in the approach we take. That seems completely reasonable. I'm not even sure what your issue with my position is besides a reflexive disagreement based on your misunderstanding of my political beliefs.

I keep writing about issues that actually lead to crime. You keep writing about Democrats and Republicans...

I made zero mention of political party until you brought it up. But since you did, I’ll reiterate it’s no secret democrats are easy on crime. Thankfully, the majority of people recognize that (even democrats).

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

This is why I keep advocating a comprehensive approach.

Again, I can't figure out what you're actually disagreeing with.

Your idea of a comprehensive approach is almost impossible without bankrupting the nation. We can barely hang on with the current process, which is one size fits all (tough on crime in some states, light on crime in others). The comprehensive approach you’re dreaming up would add many layers (and years) to simple cases. In theory, it sounds wonderful. In practice, it’s not happenin’.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Your idea of a comprehensive approach is almost impossible without bankrupting the nation. We can barely hang on with the current process, which is one size fits all (tough on crime in some states, light on crime in others). The comprehensive approach you’re dreaming up would add many layers (and years) to simple cases. In theory, it sounds wonderful. In practice, it’s not happenin’.

We pay $62,000 per year per prisoner in Connecticut.

Nothing is more expensive than incarceration, so, if cost is your true motivation, you'd be lining up next to me on this.

Prevention is much cheaper than punishment.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

We pay $62,000 per year per prisoner in Connecticut.

Nothing is more expensive than incarceration, so, if cost is your true motivation, you'd be lining up next to me on this.

Prevention is much cheaper than punishment.

That’s easy to say, but I’m not sure you realize how “comprehensive” this would really need to be to get it right. $62k per prisoner is nothing, and don’t misunderstand me to think I’m suggesting the cost will be on a per offender basis - it will be massive. Think trillions.

What was that about “oversimplification”?