[SteveM85]

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.

You're welcome but don't you think someone would have thought about long-term comprehensive solutions and addressing antecedents by now.

[BobNJ1960]

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.

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.

Bingo, and the recidivism rates are sky high. That means soft on crime liberals make us unsafe, as jailing for years the FIRST time these savages commit crimes disables recidivism.

No one conservative on here is applauding soft on crime policies and voting for soft on crime politicians. Liberals do those things, and own, properly, the soft on crime designation.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Bingo, and the recidivism rates are sky high. That means soft on crime liberals make us unsafe, as jailing for years the FIRST time these savages commit crimes disables recidivism.

No one conservative on here is applauding soft on crime policies and voting for soft on crime politicians. Liberals do those things, and own, properly, the soft on crime designation.

CT has fully adopted these policies and there's no turning back. Meetings that were called went nowhere. The final decisions have been made. Pols as well as many citizens now are fully on board. The tide is changing in CT. The hope is that juvenile crime remains the worst of it for CT.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Bingo, and the recidivism rates are sky high. That means soft on crime liberals make us unsafe, as jailing for years the FIRST time these savages commit crimes disables recidivism.

No one conservative on here is applauding soft on crime policies and voting for soft on crime politicians. Liberals do those things, and own, properly, the soft on crime designation.

Have you ever cared to investigate why recidivism is high? Others are mentioning oversimplification while there can be no greater oversimplification than just increasing penalties for property crimes.

Studies show that the certainty of being caught and punished is a much greater deterrent than long sentences. Other countries (and the few domestic localities that have them) model that proper and funded early intervention programs, rehabilitation and education programs, and recidivism prevention programs can be and often are successful and significantly cheaper than incarceration.


For example, there is significant evidence that poor nutrition contributes to juvenile delinquency. (US DOJ). I bet nutrition programs for at-risk juveniles are significantly less expensive (hundreds of dollars versus $62/K per year) than incarceration. Juvenile incarceration, by the way, can cost upwards of $200K per year... But aren't you the self-proclaimed fiscal conservative?

I don't know if you're open to discussing any of this, because it appears that all you want to do is blame Democrats and elevate Republicans regardless of the topic...

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Have you ever cared to investigate why recidivism is high? Others are mentioning oversimplification while there can be no greater oversimplification than just increasing penalties for property crimes.

Studies show that the certainty of being caught and punished is a much greater deterrent than long sentences. Other countries (and the few domestic localities that have them) model that proper and funded early intervention programs, rehabilitation and education programs, and recidivism prevention programs can be and often are successful and significantly cheaper than incarceration.


For example, there is significant evidence that poor nutrition contributes to juvenile delinquency. (US DOJ). I bet nutrition programs for at-risk juveniles are significantly less expensive (hundreds of dollars versus $62/K per year) than incarceration. Juvenile incarceration, by the way, can cost upwards of $200K per year... But aren't you the self-proclaimed fiscal conservative?

I don't know if you're open to discussing any of this, because it appears that all you want to do is blame Democrats and elevate Republicans regardless of the topic...

Do you think intervention, rehabilitation and educational programs don’t exist? You can have all the resources in the world, but if they’re not properly utilized, they do nothing. Even when they are properly utilized, again, trial and error as it’s not one size fits all.

Again, you seem to have all the answers, but don’t seem to have a clue how it actually works real time.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Do you think intervention, rehabilitation and educational programs don’t exist?

Underresourced, poorly administered, and most often punitive in nature-- in conflict with best known practices, models and research.

Yes, they exist. Most are somewhere between mediocre and poor.

It's very easy to measure crimes committed and impossible to measure crimes prevented. (Kind of like how some people assure us that guns prevent crime...). '

What if we shifted just a few resources from juvenile incarceration to proper nutrition for at-risk youth and measured outcomes? Again $200K+ a year versus hundreds a year. I'm not sure what the downside is.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Underresourced, poorly administered, and most often punitive in nature-- in conflict with best known practices, models and research.

Yes, they exist. Most are somewhere between mediocre and poor.

It's very easy to measure crimes committed and impossible to measure crimes prevented. (Kind of like how some people assure us that guns prevent crime...). '

What if we shifted just a few resources from juvenile incarceration to proper nutrition for at-risk youth and measured outcomes? Again $200K+ a year versus hundreds a year. I'm not sure what the downside is.

What’s under resourced and poorly administered in specific?

Your last point solidifies you’re talking fantasy vs reality.

[JayCT]

Once again, stop bickering and return to the topic of the OP which is juvenile crime in Connecticut. JayCT, Moderator

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Studies show that the certainty of being caught and punished is a much greater deterrent than long sentences. ..

Punish in Ct...surely you jest.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

What’s under resourced and poorly administered in specific?

Your last point solidifies you’re talking fantasy vs reality.

Bingo. Now junior carjacks using weapons cause per that poster he did not getting enough veggies per meal.