[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

We've had periods of worse crime in the US. It's cyclical to some extent.

The research shows that certainty of punishment is a much larger deterrent than long sentences. I would think the more we could do to help police solve crimes and ensure criminals serve reasonable sentences. It is the cycle of being caught and released with minimum sanction that causes what we are seeing now.

We have to look at the whole CJ system-- more consistent sentencing, more racial equity, more intervention and diversion for first time offenders would all be of benefit. We've tried locking them up and throwing away the key. We've tried minimizing sanctions and hoping for the best. Maybe it's time to aim for the reasonable middle and base what we do on research and best practices we see elsewhere.

Minimizing sanctions and hoping for the best (or hoping for the votes, rather, since it’s become a political stance) is where places like Connecticut are at now. And it’s certainly not working.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by EmiSky

I’m not sure how Dallas handled this case, but how Dallas handles their crime I’m sure differs from other cities, towns and counties in TX.

Below in an interesting article how one politician changes her tune from defunding the police after being carjacked.

“Sathanandan was the victim of a violent carjacking outside her house in the Twin Cities around 7:45 p.m. on Tuesday. The attack happened in front of her 4-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son.

The prairie politician posted a photo of her bloodied face on Facebook — and she’s calling for scalps. Credit where due.

She wrote: “I have a broken leg, deep lacerations on my head, bruising, and cuts all over my body. And I have rage.”

The article sums it up pretty well.

“It is a truism that pols do little when it comes to crime unless it affects them directly. The words “out of touch” strike a chord far too often.

God forbid anything happen to any of our elected officials, or their families.

What then?

Would they continue to blow off the anguished cries of mothers whose children have been murdered? Brush off early parole for a cold-blooded killer? Or the transfer of one of the nation’s most infamous killers to a softer prison?

I would expect that two-thirds of politicians would suddenly get behind a more realistic worldview of crime in this country.

It took a terrifying carjacking that could have turned deadly to change the tune for Shivanthi Sathanandan. Is that what it’s going to take here?

I hope not.”

https://torontosun.com/news/world/hu...ody-carjacking

That’s a perfect example Emi. Great work. That is now a part of life that people have to accept and live with in states embracing progressive agendas like MN and CT. No one is immune, not even pols pushing for those prog agendas. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing I myself support some of those things.
If this lady has now changed her mind, her best bet is to start googling moving quotes online.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Minimizing sanctions and hoping for the best (or hoping for the votes, rather, since it’s become a political stance) is where places like Connecticut are at now. And it’s certainly not working.

Yes. Agreed.

We've also found that long-term incarceration, while perhaps more viscerally satisfying for some, doesn't work either-- except where it's warranted for serial offenders and the most heinous of crimes. Three strikes and over-enfrocement of drug laws led to a lot of people serving long term sentences who shouldn't have with no net benefit to society.

We need reasonable policy based on research and the best practices we see working in other countries.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Yes. Agreed.

We've also found that long-term incarceration, while perhaps more viscerally satisfying for some, doesn't work either-- except where it's warranted for serial offenders and the most heinous of crimes. Three strikes and over-enfrocement of drug laws led to a lot of people serving long term sentences who shouldn't have with no net benefit to society.

We need reasonable policy based on research and the best practices we see working in other countries.

During the era Three Strikes was added, juvenile violent crime rates dropped. I suspect it played a big role in why, as those behind bars do not commit more crimes. IMO, our laws should be enforced and no one served too long, as in a civilized society one should be subject to the laws and sentencing guidelines of the era.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

During the era Three Strikes was added, juvenile violent crime rates dropped. I suspect it played a big role in why, as those behind bars do not commit more crimes. IMO, our laws should be enforced and no one served too long, as in a civilized society one should be subject to the laws and sentencing guidelines of the era.

That's right, and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
If the sentence for trafficking 1000 kilos of cocaine is ten years, then you get 10 years with the possibility of getting out on parole in 2-3 with good behaviour. If that's what it is then that's what it is.
I know there's this notion going around that people are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for selling a joint. I seriously doubt they're true but if they are it's ridiculuos, I would have to agree, those sentences should be pardoned.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

During the era Three Strikes was added, juvenile violent crime rates dropped. I suspect it played a big role in why, as those behind bars do not commit more crimes. IMO, our laws should be enforced and no one served too long, as in a civilized society one should be subject to the laws and sentencing guidelines of the era.

Luckily, we have social science research to provide guidance, instead of following hunches.

A University of Chicago Study published in the Journal of Legal Studies found that 3-strikes laws likely increased homicides, (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468112).

Kovandzic, Sloan, & Vieraitis's 2004 study found that three strikes laws do not reduce crime rates. Additionally these laws are not cost effective and we end up incarcerating people for arbitrary petty crime due to the three strikes law.

There are numerous other citations evidencing inefficacy, cost, and implementation problems with three strikes laws.

I don't think the science is ever perfect-- but it's certainly better than following hunches and feelings.

There is almost universal agreement that providing opportunity and employment for youth reduces juvenile delinquency significantly. I think investing in youth opportunity versus three strikes would be our best bet in preventing juvenile crime.

Absolutely, punish the offenders reasonably and appropriately-- but let's make sure desire for retribution doesn't override our sense of justice or implementation of programs that result in better outcomes.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

That's right, and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
If the sentence for trafficking 1000 kilos of cocaine is ten years, then you get 10 years with the possibility of getting out on parole in 2-3 with good behaviour. If that's what it is then that's what it is.
I know there's this notion going around that people are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for selling a joint. I seriously doubt they're true but if they are it's ridiculuos, I would have to agree, those sentences should be pardoned.

agreed. We all knew what the laws and consequences of the times were, and what they are now.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by Lillie767

Unfortunately, between arrest and conviction, there's a lot that can happen.

Is the juvenile charged as a juvenile?

Just read in the paper, he's been charged as an adult.

He was released on a six figure bond, and immediately taken back in to custody for violating the conditions of that bond. He sounds like a real piece of work.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Just read in the paper, he's been charged as an adult.

He was released on a six figure bond, and immediately taken back in to custody for violating the conditions of that bond. He sounds like a real piece of work.

So CT isn't allowing people to commit violent felonies and just releasing them with no follow up? I was under the impression the state gives them a trophy, 2 thousand dollars in Kuggerrands and assorted illicitly obtained artwork, and a puppy.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

We've also found that long-term incarceration, while perhaps more viscerally satisfying for some, doesn't work either-- except where it's warranted for serial offenders and the most heinous of crimes. Three strikes and over-enfrocement of drug laws led to a lot of people serving long term sentences who shouldn't have with no net benefit to society.

I like how you added some flare by saying "viscerally" satisfying instead of just saying "more satsifying".
That was a nice touch