Two interesting conversations with 'antis' today (with positive outcomes)

[DMK]

What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like compton if you were emperor?

People commit any crime because they think they can get away with it. Even the most hardened criminal will not commit murder if they know without a shadow of a doubt that they will be caught shortly and they will be executed for their crime.

Now the problem becomes, how to we change the perception that criminals will get away with crime. There's a couple problems:

a) We have a legal system that requires proof of crime and proof that the accused was the one that commited it. Not much we can or should want to change here. We don't want innocent citizens to be arrested and convicted for crimes that they didn't commit due to hearsay and circumstantial evidence. However, citizens do need to take a more active part in both reporting crimes and in performing their civic duties (I have no patience for people who wish to shirk jury duty without any real hardship).

b) The law enforcement, court and prison systems are overburdened with minutia. Ah, now here is where we need to take a cold hard look and figure out what we are really trying to accomplish with our legal system. We have out of control legislation in this country. There are too many felonies, too many federal crimes. We have too many tax related, minor drug related (remember "zero tolerance"?) and other non-violent or white collar crimes clogging up our courts. Too many serious crimes go unsolved due to lack of law enforcement manpower. Too many serious cases are plea bargained for the same reason. Too many dangerous criminals are allowed to walk with short prison times because the prisons are overcrowded.

c) The American public is not encouraged or even expected to take any serious responsibility for their own personal security or for the security of their community. I'll not comment on this last part. What do you all think the problem is here and how can America fix it?

 

[WingZero]

If legalizing drugs is a good idea, why did a left wing socialist country like Sweden recriminalize drugs after 30 years of complete legalization and social health care / treatment for users?

And why are more countries like Australia going to Sweden for help on how to control their countries drug problems after years of decriminalization and lax views and catagorizing of drugs?

You want to get high?.... move to Canada.

(P.S. I used to do drugs, and now I completely hate them and those that use them. Why, cause I know from personal experience.)

It seems very scarry to me that so many people on these boards are for the legalization of drugs.

 

[Jim March]

Mixing free socialized medicine with drugs might be a bad idea, sure.

Socialized medicine is a bad idea regardless of course...

 

[Jay Kominek]

If legalizing drugs is a good idea, why did a left wing socialist country like Sweden recriminalize drugs after 30 years of complete legalization and social health care / treatment for users?

Because socialized health care is a bad idea, but it is easier to blame drugs than socialism. (In those countries.)
I'm surprised those countries don't ban activities like smoking cigars/cigarettes, sky diving, riding motorcycles, fast food, and the various 'extreme' sports, as well.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Other than that we were both pretty baffled. Laws won't do jack, as there are enough handguns on the black market to continue to have gang warfare for a hundred years after they were completely banned.
---------------------------------------------------

You want answers? Here they are:

1. If the government can't protect honest citizens, for heaven's sake, it shouldn't prevent them from defending themselves. There are unimpeachable studies (like that by John Lott) that show liberalized concealed carry laws reduce violent crime.

2. Do preventive drug programs. I find most of these (after school activites that keep kids off the streets and provide good role models) are run by churches -- and financed by their meagre collection plates. Capitalize on this -- support letting them get grants and contracts to do the effective work -- and they are almost the ONLY effective workers in the field.

3. Provide every child with a first-quality, world-class education. The disparity in education between schools in poor districts and those in affluent districts is THE civil rights issue of the 21st Century.

4. Create a system of incentives and reduced taxes (among other things) to attract businesses to economically-deprived areas AND to help existing businesses grow and prosper.

I'd be glad to correspond pirvately on this -- I think more detail would bore people here.

Vernon Humphrey
Republican for Congress
First District of Arkansas

 

[c-bag]

- my two cents

1- drug laws and gun laws are similar, if not the same. both stem from misguided attempts to cure the disease (crime and poverty) by treating the symptoms (violence and addiction)

2- personal responsibility should be stressed above all in our courts and our schools. not saying legitimate excuses don't exist, but the burden of proof needs to be stronger.

3- all this talk of:

want to reduce crime in compton? build a wall around the city and let THEM kill each other off.

to me smacks of fascism or at least callousness and does all of us on this forum a diservice by reinforcing the stereotype of gunowners as bigoted thugs and selfish brutes.

4- gun laws and drug laws are the same in that they deprive the decent majority of measurable freedom in the interest of a vauge and undefinable "public good"

 

[shep854]

Reduce crime in inner cities? LET THE HONEST PEOPLE (and there are a lot of them in those areas) ARM THEMSELVES. Sure, there will be a surge in violence, as the Good Guys start shooting back, but peace will quickly prevail as Bad Guys die or run.

One way to do this is to remove the "junk gun" or "Saturday Night Special" bans, so that affordable guns are available to the less well-off.

 

[Frohickey]

What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like compton if you were emperor?

Simple.

I would give active and retired police officers a $1000/month bonus if they would change residency and maintain a home in Compton.

Although, that is pretty much the same as handing out CCW licenses to people there.

 

[atek3]

4. Create a system of incentives and reduced taxes (among other things) to attract businesses to economically-deprived areas AND to help existing businesses grow and prosper.

That idea already exists federally, at the state, and local level here in california. Still, few people relocate there because a) the crime is high, b) inner cities are among the worst places to do business from a regulatory aspect. c) the existing pool of job applicants is highly sub par. I mean why set up in compton paying 5 dollars an hour for unskilled labor, when you can find VERY motivated workers in china for a fraction of the price.
If people want businesses to move to compton the workers there have to PROVE they are worth the premium.

atek3

 

[iapetus]

Mark13

The only postive aspect of drug criminalization is that it keeps drug use non-public, and allows the govt to try to help some of the people they catch.

The government could still help addicts if drugs were legal. I'm sure there are many addicts whou want to quit, but are afraid of the legal consequences of admitting to being criminals. (And there would be more money available for the health service, if you were a) taxing drug sales, and b) not enforcing drug laws).

(That said, I'm not - yet - 100% convinced all drugs should be legalised. Probably just about 98% )

LiquidTension You wanna know what would really deter crime? A sentencing lottery. ... Think about it - do you think that a car thief would think twice about stealing someone's car if he knew that he just might get life in prison or the death sentence? You're dang right he would.

"You may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb".

If you can get life (or death) for petty crimes, why not commit the big crimes that get you more money?

I would say though (in the UK - is it like this in the US as well?) that punishments for first-time convictions need increasing. Almost always being lenient for "first-time offenders" (more accurately, "first-time found out offenders") means that would-be criminals can think "I can do this crime, and it won't matter if I'm caught". If they knew that commiting crimes will result in punishment if caught (better still, when), they'd be less likely (I expect) to start in the first place.

 

[Dex Sinister]

What do you guys and gals think? How would you lower the murder rate in places like Compton if you were emperor?

Personally, I've always liked the ideas presented in Creating Defensible Space. [You can D/L the entire book in PDF format there.]

This was the brainchild of architect Oscar Newman who reasoned that the open grid-street design of cities such as Compton:

encouraged wide-ranging crime, and an inability for residents to form a community that was defensibly "theirs" such that they could reduce crime by taking back control over their neighborhoods.

It's not without examples of badly designed implementations, such as Bridgeport, CT and Sepulveda, California, where the cities simply lobbed concrete Jersey Walls at the problem, and later took them down because they were incredibly ugly and unsightly and in Sepulveda because the local drug gangs used the maze of blocked streets to evade police and control their turf on foot.

It's kind of like water-tight doors in a ship -- it tends to inhibit crime from spreading randomly, and allows concentrated action where the problem is. Not that this is much consolation if you happen to be inside the compartment that is filling up with water. The question of how you can root out the crime in a neighborhood that is already controlled by gangs is a thorny one, admittedly.

Combined with drug legalization [and that would be the "Prohibition didn't work 70 years ago and caused the same problems as the drug 'war' has, so why, if we abolished alcohol Prohibition, are we hanging onto drug Prohibition like its any different," argument, not the " 'Cause I like drugs" argument, in case someone was wondering] and arming the law abiding, one would think that the problem would end in short order.

Even in Compton, [or Baltimore, MD which I grew up outside of,] the problem is not really "the city" itself - generally about 80% of the neighborhoods in even high crime cities have stats similar to most "low crime" areas, with the other 20% of the neighborhoods with stats so high that they make the entire city appear dangerous.

Dex

 

[atek3]

Dex, for another interesting take on more liveable citys, read "the voluntary city" edited by Alexander Tabarrok published by the independent institute. They argue for privatization.

atek3

 

[Dex Sinister]

privatization

That would, of course, take care of the problem.

Link to the summary here: The Voluntary City

Dex

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------
Reduce crime in inner cities? LET THE HONEST PEOPLE (and there are a lot of them in those areas) ARM THEMSELVES. Sure, there will be a surge in violence, as the Good Guys start shooting back,
----------------------------------------------------

More than two-thirds of the states have laws allowing honest people to arm themselves, and there was no surge in violence -- violence simply began to fall once honest people started carrying.

Quote (about incentives):
----------------------------------------------------
That idea already exists federally, at the state, and local level here in california. Still, few people relocate there because a) the crime is high, b) inner cities are among the worst places to do business from a regulatory aspect. c) the existing pool of job applicants is highly sub par.
---------------------------------------------------------

In other words, they apply only PART of the solution and are amazed it doesn't work.