Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- They say crime doesn't pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.
The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It's based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.
Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.
The bill doesn't specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.
Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, a Democrat who wrote the legislation, said it was part of a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in the city, which experienced a 54 percent increase in homicides last year. Homicides and violent crime are still down significantly since the 2000s, and even more so since the early 1990s when the District was dubbed the nation's "murder capital."
McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends "pales in comparison" to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender.
"I want to prevent violent crime - particularly gun violence - by addressing the root causes and creating opportunities for people, particularly those individuals who are at the highest risks of offending," McDuffie, a former prosecutor, said in a letter to constituents last week.
Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program, which would cost $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments, according to the District's independent chief financial officer. Without the mayor's support, it would be up to the Council to find money for it through new taxes or cuts to existing programs.
The program would be run independently of the police department, and participants would remain anonymous. Its goal would be to recruit people who are at risk of violence but don't have criminal cases pending.
In Richmond, 79 percent of "fellows" participating in the program have not been suspected of involvement in any gun crimes since joining the program, and 84 percent have not been injured by gunfire, the program's executive director, DeVone Boggan, said in a report to the Council.
Richmond experienced a 77 percent drop in homicides between 2007, when the program was launched, and 2014, although how much can be specifically attributed to the stipends is unclear.
The proposal in Washington has generated scant debate as lawmakers have focused on other crime-fighting tools included in the bill. Longtime civic activist Dorothy Brizill was the only person to testify against the stipend program at a lengthy hearing last fall, saying it would waste taxpayer dollars.
"These incentive programs don't work," Brizill said Tuesday.
How exactly does one get on the list of potential violent criminal? Do I have to shoot someone this year to get on next year's list?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
The stipend is for attending a counselling program NOT for staying out of trouble. And it is working.
But leave it to conservatives to reject something that works and continue to promote something that has proven NOT to reduce violence throughout all recorded history......."Guns for everyone!!!!"
(02-03-2016, 11:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The stipend is for attending a counselling program NOT for staying out of trouble. And it is working.
But leave it to conservatives to reject something that works and continue to promote something that has proven NOT to reduce violence throughout all recorded history......."Guns for everyone!!!!"
So we are paying people for showing up to couseling to cousel them to do what they are supposed to be doing .....
(02-03-2016, 01:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So we are paying people for showing up to couseling to cousel them to do what they are supposed to be doing .....
What a racket lol
Yes that is exactly what they are doing. Counselling is more than just telling people what to do. It is helping them understand why they do what they do and educating them on ways to control their behavior.
Are you one of those people whi think every type of behavioral counselling is a "racket"?
If so then what do you have to say about this program working?
(02-03-2016, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes that is exactly what they are doing. Counselling is more than just telling people what to do. It is helping them understand why they do what they do and educating them on ways to control their behavior.
Are you one of those people whi think every type of behavioral counselling is a "racket"?
If so then what do you have to say about this program working?
I think it's sad that you need counseling to be told to not commit crimes . Do they also need couseling to make sure they breathe?
It's painful that we have people who are this stupid.
As far as it working...... I should hope it's working considering we are making it some degenerates job to not commit crimes.
(02-03-2016, 02:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think it's sad that you need counseling to be told to not commit crimes . Do they also need couseling to make sure they breathe?
It's painful that we have people who are this stupid.
As far as it working...... I should hope it's working considering we are making it some degenerates job to not commit crimes.
Look at me following laws for free like a sucker.
So you believe that every forem of psychological counselling is a sham?
Depressed people should not have to be told not to be depressed? Drug addicts should not have be told not to be addicted to drugs? Suicidal teenagers should not have to be told not to commit suicide? The entire field of psycholoigy is just a scam?
And, again, you completely miss the the purpose of the stipend. It has nothing to do with not committing another crime. It has to do wiuth getting counselling. That claim you keep making was just a headline to fool the rubes out there.
And, of course, IT IS WORKING. Why do you oppose a program that actually works? Do you prefer to just pay more and more taxes top build and staff more jails and prisons? Are you the one who tells the victims of violent crimes that you don't want to help them?
(02-03-2016, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you believe that every forem of psychological counselling is a sham?
Depressed people should not have to be told not to be depressed? Drug addicts should not have be told not to be addicted to drugs? Suicidal teenagers should not have to be told not to commit suicide? The entire field of psycholoigy is just a scam?
And, again, you completely miss the the purpose of the stipend. It has nothing to do with not committing another crime. It has to do wiuth getting counselling. That claim you keep making was just a headline to fool the rubes out there.
And, of course, IT IS WORKING. Why do you oppose a program that actually works? Do you prefer to just pay more and more taxes top build and staff more jails and prisons? Are you the one who tells the victims of violent crimes that you don't want to help them?
If people are criminals we shouldn't be paying them anything. Cut them off of all services.
Mind you I say this with the understanding that we need massive adjustment with how we punish several crimes. but then that is a whole other thread diving into that topic.
(02-03-2016, 02:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If people are criminals we shouldn't be paying them anything. Cut them off of all services.
Mind you I say this with the understanding that we need massive adjustment with how we punish several crimes. but then that is a whole other thread diving into that topic.
So, again, you support a system that does not work over something that does.
How can you possibly think like this? This counselling is reducing the crime rate. It has nothing to do wiuth the stipend. If it was just about the money then the criminals would go right back to crime as soon as they got the money in their hands. But that is not what is happening.
How can you possibly be opposed to something that is working?
(02-03-2016, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So, again, you support a system that does not work over something that does.
How can you possibly think like this? This counselling is reducing the crime rate. It has nothing to do wiuth the stipend. If it was just about the money then the criminals would go right back to crime as soon as they got the money in their hands. But that is not what is happening.
How can you possibly be opposed to something that is working?
Because we shouldn't pay you to learn to fix yourself. Counseling is great. I'm all for it, but paying someone to learn how to control themselves is ridiculous.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(02-03-2016, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So, again, you support a system that does not work over something that does.
How can you possibly think like this? This counselling is reducing the crime rate. It has nothing to do wiuth the stipend. If it was just about the money then the criminals would go right back to crime as soon as they got the money in their hands. But that is not what is happening.
How can you possibly be opposed to something that is working?
If it has nothing to do with the stipend then we can stop paying the stipend. And they can attend couseling all they wish.
(02-03-2016, 02:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Because we shouldn't pay you to learn to fix yourself. Counseling is great. I'm all for it, but paying someone to learn how to control themselves is ridiculous.
(02-03-2016, 02:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's likely cheaper and more effective than throwing them in jail. i would definitely like to see a CBA on this at some point.
Minus the fixed costs? If I have 1000 people in jail, how much does the 1001 cost?
I'd be happy to have free counseling available, but this is nonsense.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(02-03-2016, 03:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Minus the fixed costs? If I have 1000 people in jail, how much does the 1001 cost?
I'd be happy to have free counseling available, but this is nonsense.
Depends on a number of variables, but I'm sure there are guidelines involving a guard to inmate ratio, and so you could divide guard salaries by the number of inmates, you also have meal costs that are dependent upon the number of incarcerated. Healthcare costs for the inmates are directly impacted by the population.
Just three things off the top of my head directly dependent on the number incarcerated.
(02-03-2016, 03:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Depends on a number of variables, but I'm sure there are guidelines involving a guard to inmate ratio, and so you could divide guard salaries by the number of inmates, you also have meal costs that are dependent upon the number of incarcerated. Healthcare costs for the inmates are directly impacted by the population.
Just three things off the top of my head directly dependent on the number incarcerated.
Meals and healthcare and clothing. I'm assuming they have healthcare staff in jails in prisons, so really only medicine unless something big comes up. One inmate isn't changing the number of guards.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: fcb4f768-64b8-4038-a7fe-b233dd08e7aa_zpsrg90bbk0.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/rotobeast2/fcb4f768-64b8-4038-a7fe-b233dd08e7aa_zpsrg90bbk0.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
