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.
Current rumor is prosecutor's office is going to refuse to charge anyone caught with less than 10gr of dope soon. This is effectively going to legalize all drug use which sort of already has happened. But 10gr is a lot. Eventually crime records will show we have zero drug problems here. More importantly statistics will show no discrepancy along demographic lines in prosecution.
Question remains why would public prosecutor do this? Well, this kind of decision follows ideological line from outside Seattle.
Same is done with murders, unsolved murders don't make it into statistics. If you don't know who did it how do you know it isn't a suicide or accidental death?
Finally property crime isn't even investigated in Seattle unless stolen property contains something that could gravely endanger public or law enforcement (like high power riffle, automatic weapons, pathogens etc).
You'll find this out first time you get robbed and go to call for help in finding your stuff.
Basically, if you look at the official stats we have very little crime here because that is the ideological prerogative.
The official term used within a police agency is....
Padding the stats.
Doing so has consequences. Some of which are starting to come to light in Seattle and surrounding cities.
^^ And, umropantelija, you're not grinding your own one-sided ideological axe here?
Most property crimes and some of the violent crimes are committed by drug addicts seeking to feed their addictions. Most petty dealers and prostitutes are addicts. Our jails and prisons are already stuffed to the gunnels with petty drug criminals. We already jail/imprison more people per capita than any other developed nation and many under-developed nations - more than China and Cuba! Without building more jails and prisons, jailing petty drug criminals just means that more serious criminals get pushed out onto the street.
Many violent crimes are due to gang violence, due to fighting over turf or strong-arming residents. Many thefts and robberies are organized by gangs. Gangs exist largely due to high demand for illicit drugs.
I'm in favor of LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion), recently expanded to North Seattle, in order to divert petty non-violent criminals to treatment/therapy for untreated addictions/mental illness, as well as other resources. LEAD is still a pilot program - currently, only a small percentage of petty offenders are eligible for diversion.
Theoretically, if applied broadly, and with treatment/therapy and other resources in place to support it, LEAD could significantly reduce the number of petty non-violent criminals who're cycling through our courts and jails.
If they continue to commit crimes, however, they should be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, tried, and, if found guilty, fined and/or jailed/imprisoned; if found to be mentally incompetent, they should be committed for treatment, rather than warehoused, untreated, in jails and prisons. If we could divert most non-violent/non-habitual criminals to services/resources, keeping them out of the criminal justice system, that could allow law enforcement/criminal justice resources to be redirected toward more effectively addressing violent and other serious crimes, including gang violence and rackets.
Doing so, however, means ending the War on Drugs, at least as far as petty drug criminals are concerned, as well as dedicating much more money and effort to create economic opportunity in disadvantaged communities (urban and rural), rather than the continuation of what might be called "unbenign neglect".
Most police I've talked with don't want to mess and stink up their patrol cars to arrest homeless drunks for minor infractions, when they're going to be let out by the next morning, if not that night. Cite them and they just crumple and throw the citation away. One officer told me that it was like playing "wack-a-mole" - knock it down in one area and it just pops up somewhere else. We need to stop expecting the police to solve what are economic, social, and public health problems.
Seattle does have many fewer police per capita than most other cities, especially on the East Coast or the Mid-West. Many on the Right who're calling for a "lock 'em up" policy, however, aren't willing to pay additional taxes to hire more police and court personnel, expand the courts, and build more jails and prisons, which would be very, very expensive. Those on the Left are also opposed to it because they tend to see more police as simply leading to more injustice (and violence against minorities), until they get burgled or robbed, that is.
Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 07-04-2018 at 02:55 PM..
^^ And, umropantelija, you're not grinding your own one-sided ideological axe here?
Most property crimes and some of the violent crimes are committed by drug addicts seeking to feed their addictions. Most petty dealers and prostitutes are addicts. Our jails and prisons are already stuffed to the gunnels with petty drug criminals. We already jail/imprison more people per capita than any other developed nation and many under-developed nations - more than China and Cuba! Without building more jails and prisons, jailing petty drug criminals just means that more serious criminals get pushed out onto the street.
Many violent crimes are due to gang violence, due to fighting over turf or strong-arming residents. Many thefts and robberies are organized by gangs. Gangs exist largely due to high demand for illicit drugs.
I'm in favor of LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion), recently expanded to North Seattle, in order to divert petty non-violent criminals to treatment/therapy for untreated addictions/mental illness, as well as other resources. LEAD is still a pilot program - currently, only a small percentage of petty offenders are eligible for diversion.
Theoretically, if applied broadly, and with treatment/therapy and other resources in place to support it, LEAD could significantly reduce the number of petty non-violent criminals who're cycling through our courts and jails.
If they continue to commit crimes, however, they should be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, tried, and, if found guilty, fined and/or jailed/imprisoned; if found to be mentally incompetent, they should be committed for treatment, rather than warehoused, untreated, in jails and prisons. If we could divert most non-violent/non-habitual criminals to services/resources, keeping them out of the criminal justice system, that could allow law enforcement/criminal justice resources to be redirected toward more effectively addressing violent and other serious crimes, including gang violence and rackets.
Doing so, however, means ending the War on Drugs, at least as far as petty drug criminals are concerned, as well as dedicating much more money and effort to create economic opportunity in disadvantaged communities (urban and rural), rather than the continuation of what might be called "unbenign neglect".
Most police I've talked with don't want to mess and stink up their patrol cars to arrest homeless drunks for minor infractions, when they're going to be let out by the next morning, if not that night. Cite them and they just crumple and throw the citation away. One officer told me that it was like playing "wack-a-mole" - knock it down in one area and it just pops up somewhere else. We need to stop expecting the police to solve what are economic, social, and public health problems.
Seattle does have many fewer police per capita than most other cities, especially on the East Coast or the Mid-West. Many on the Right who're calling for a "lock 'em up" policy, however, aren't willing to pay additional taxes to hire more police and court personnel, expand the courts, and build more jails and prisons, which would be very, very expensive. Those on the Left are also opposed to it because they tend to see more police as simply leading to more injustice (and violence against minorities), until they get burgled or robbed, that is.
The vast majority already fall under the pretense "habitual offenders'. You won't find many if any that don't have lengthy criminal records. A simple name search on WA.gov under courts will yield this info.
The best approach to drug addiction is time. Eventually fate catches up and problem is solved. It really is a self correcting issue. There aren't many agencies in the sound area that arrest for small amounts of drugs, has been this way for several years now.
CrazyDonkey's ideas seem very sound to me. The ones committing violent crimes need to be caught and charged and prosecuted, of course, as always. But the "mole theory" makes a lot of sense and wastes police resource time and taxpayer money. Send police to the worst of the worst. It's true, though, more police means more taxes, and that's a sore sound to King, Pierce and Snohomish County taxpayers.
The vast majority already fall under the pretense "habitual offenders'. You won't find many if any that don't have lengthy criminal records. A simple name search on WA.gov under courts will yield this info.
The best approach to drug addiction is time. Eventually fate catches up and problem is solved. It really is a self correcting issue. There aren't many agencies in the sound area that arrest for small amounts of drugs, has been this way for several years now.
"Unbenign neglect" has been the policy since the 1980s, at least. The problem has not gotten better with time, nor will it, but has only gotten worse. It is hardly self-correcting. The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. Simply advising more of the same is not a solution.
Addicts will do anything they need to do to feed their addictions - effectively treat the addiction (with Methadone, for instance), however, and the need to commit crimes goes away. From a big picture perspective, providing petty drug criminals with treatment and help in getting their lives back on track is much, much less expensive than hiring more police, court, and corrections personnel, expanding the courts, and building even more jails and prisons.
If we can effectively divert non-violent petty drug criminals toward treatment/therapy and away from jails and prisons, that could free up resources to all the more strenuously go after violent and hardened habitual criminals. By "petty drug criminals" I don't mean just users (possession), but also petty dealers and non-violent offenders who are committing crimes (shoplifting, car prowls, break-ins, prostitution, etc.) due to addiction. I'm not in favor of ignoring crimes, but just think that diverting petty drug criminals toward treatment/therapy and social supports and away from the court/penal system makes a lot sense.
Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 07-05-2018 at 10:59 AM..
"Unbenign neglect" has been the policy since the 1980s, at least. The problem has not gotten better with time, nor will it, but has only gotten worse. It is hardly self-correcting. The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. Simply advising more of the same is not a solution.
Addicts will do anything they need to do to feed their addictions - effectively treat the addiction (with Methadone, for instance), however, and the need to commit crimes goes away. From a big picture perspective, providing petty drug criminals with treatment and help in getting their lives back on track is much, much less expensive than hiring more police, court, and corrections personnel, expanding the courts, and building even more jails and prisons.
If we can effectively divert non-violent petty drug criminals toward treatment/therapy and away from jails and prisons, that could free up resources to all the more strenuously go after violent and hardened habitual criminals. By "petty drug criminals" I don't mean just users (possession), but also petty dealers and non-violent offenders who are committing crimes (shoplifting, car prowls, break-ins, prostitution, etc.) due to addiction. I'm not in favor of ignoring crimes, but just think that diverting petty drug criminals toward treatment/therapy and social supports and away from the court/penal system makes a lot sense.
It absolutely is self correcting. At some point an addict will overdose. No help will be coming.
Problem solved. I do not favor handing out Narcan/Naloxone to police. That is not their job.
One wants to play with a needle one needs to know there are consequences.
It absolutely is self correcting. At some point an addict will overdose. No help will be coming.
Problem solved. I do not favor handing out Narcan/Naloxone to police. That is not their job.
One wants to play with a needle one needs to know there are consequences.
Would you be singing the same tune ("Social Darwinism Blues") if it was your daughter/son or sister/brother who was addicted by Big Pharma? I doubt it (unless you're a childless only-child).
Not everyone can be saved. However, unbenign neglect can be very expensive. Even one person freed from addiction can lift a significant financial burden from society. What you advise at best only perpetuates the problem, and at worst makes it worse.
Would you be singing the same tune ("Social Darwinism Blues") if it was your daughter/son or sister/brother who was addicted by Big Pharma? I doubt it (unless you're a childless only-child).
Not everyone can be saved. However, unbenign neglect can be very expensive. Even one person freed from addiction can lift a significant financial burden from society. What you advise at best only perpetuates the problem, and at worst makes it worse.
Makes zero difference to me. One can not help one who does not wish to be helped. And big pharma is not the issue when it comes to illicit fentanyl. Catch word illicit.
Big Pharma got millions addicted to opioids. A crackdown on pill-mill "pain" clinics and GP pill-pushers followed, driving many of Big Pharma's addicts to the street to acquire heroin and other illicit opioids (including fentanyl).
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.
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.
