Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Should we pay thugs to behave, rather than just keep jailing them??

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,329
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Should we pay thugs to behave, rather than just keep jailing them??

    Saw this on the GOP site, but also see it elsewhere..

    http://readingeagle.com/life/article...late=mobileart

    http://www.dmcityview.com/news-of-th...rime-does-pay/

    So do you think its a good idea to pay thugs to behave and not break the law?

    What determines your "compensation' to stop thuggery?

    Is this not illegal, as it is effectively paying out money to people to not do crime? Almost like protection rackets that we went after the mob for?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Well now, it looks like conservatives have a dilemma on their hands! Because I'm sure that the cost of jailing them is greater than the cost of paying them to behave. If that's the case, then it's less tax money being spent!

    Oh, but wait... that means you can't punish (*snicker*) "thugs."

    Something's gotta give!

    I will say this, though... if conservatives do favor jailing them over paying them to stay out of trouble; it only further shows that the "tax money" arguments that conservatives like to use are only cover-ups for other motives.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    It won't be enough. Too tempting for a thug to have it both ways. Now the tax payers are out more money.

    Besides, paying people to do what they should do anyway is like giving a medal for doing your job well.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Here is the city website for Richmond, California; it explains their program better.

    http://ca-richmond.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2410

    The one that involves monthly stipends is called the Peacekeepr program.

    In Baltimore, a non-profit group called, Living Classrooms, teamed with city officials and tried something like this.

    It didn't work in Baltimore for a number of reasons. I'll try to post a news story later about Baltimore's program going horribly wrong due to corruption and embezzlement.

    If Richmond, California got their program to work, good for them. However, it sounds like the city is doing a lot more than just the Peacekeeper program.

    Plus, they have a much smaller gang problem.

    I am wary of city officials paying active gang members to mediate conflict.

    What is at the heart of this violence is the drug trade. Street gangs are fighting for territory to distribute illegal drugs.

    I say take their business away by making drugs legal. Let some corporation undercut their prices and put them out of business.

    Corporations typically don't get in gun battles with each other over distribution rights.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mata Leao View Post
    It won't be enough. Too tempting for a thug to have it both ways. Now the tax payers are out more money.
    I'm assuming that the money goes away for good if they misbehave. The article doesn't state this, but that's the only way all of this could make any sense.

    Besides, paying people to do what they should do anyway is like giving a medal for doing your job well.
    The military has been doing this for as long as there's been medals, and we still win wars. Well, not all of them, but the ones we lost had nothing to do with medals... which no one cares about unless they get promotion points for them in the first place.

    I'm not totally onboard with this idea, unless of course... it's being used a cheaper alternative to prisons. But, then again, I'm not a California resident so - as far as tax dollars go - this doesn't really concern me. If they could give those guys work to do for the money that they're being given (and I mean meaningful work that provides value to the community, not dumb shit like moving rocks back and forth for the purpose of giving angry working class people a "warm and fuzzy"), that would be even better.

    The other thing to think about... when it comes to crime, preventive action could be better than corrective action. After all, prison might seem more attractive to those who are all about punishing... but think about this. If someone shoots your mother in the head and takes her purse, they're going to prison. Sounds good, right? But would you rather they be paid to not do that at all, and you still get to keep your mother?
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  6. #6
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    I'm assuming that the money goes away for good if they misbehave. The article doesn't state this, but that's the only way all of this could make any sense.



    The military has been doing this for as long as there's been medals, and we still win wars. Well, not all of them, but the ones we lost had nothing to do with medals... which no one cares about unless they get promotion points for them in the first place.

    I'm not totally onboard with this idea, unless of course... it's being used a cheaper alternative to prisons. But, then again, I'm not a California resident so - as far as tax dollars go - this doesn't really concern me. If they could give those guys work to do for the money that they're being given (and I mean meaningful work that provides value to the community, not dumb shit like moving rocks back and forth for the purpose of giving angry working class people a "warm and fuzzy"), that would be even better.

    The other thing to think about... when it comes to crime, preventive action could be better than corrective action. After all, prison might seem more attractive to those who are all about punishing... but think about this. If someone shoots your mother in the head and takes her purse, they're going to prison. Sounds good, right? But would you rather they be paid to not do that at all, and you still get to keep your mother?
    If you look at the Richmond website they aren't simply paying them to be good, it is one part of a much larger initiative.

    While the description of the program is a little vague, it sounds similar to what was tried in Baltimore.

    In Baltimore they were trying to get ex-gang members to mediate conflict between rival gangs.

    In at least one instance, the Baltimore program used an active gang leader, who was primarily interested in solidifying his gang's grip on power. That is where the program ran into the first of its troubles.

    I also think that ideas like this can reduce violence and possibly hamper gang recruitment. If they can be administered without becoming corrupt, then I'm all for cities trying it.

    However, it still isn't addressing the root problem of the illegal drug trade, but that is out of the hands of local officials.
    Last edited by Absinthe Anecdote; 06-09-2015 at 02:30 PM.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,329
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Well now, it looks like conservatives have a dilemma on their hands! Because I'm sure that the cost of jailing them is greater than the cost of paying them to behave. If that's the case, then it's less tax money being spent!
    That is a valid point, that its a dilemma. BUT one concern i have, is why should we be paying them to act "nice" but not everyone? Also, do we 'recoup' the monies spent on them if/when they DO break the law, and HOW? Most likely it has already been spent, and since a good chunk of these people are not working, only collecting welfare/ebt etc, how do we get that money back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mata Leao View Post
    It won't be enough. Too tempting for a thug to have it both ways. Now the tax payers are out more money.
    Very true. As mentioned above, how would we go about recouping the money spent when they DO violate the law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    The other thing to think about... when it comes to crime, preventive action could be better than corrective action. After all, prison might seem more attractive to those who are all about punishing... but think about this. If someone shoots your mother in the head and takes her purse, they're going to prison. Sounds good, right? But would you rather they be paid to not do that at all, and you still get to keep your mother?
    True, but i would for one rather not have to pay someone to 'follow the law'.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Absinthe Anecdote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    3,669
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Again, the city of Richmond, California isn't paying anyone to act nice. They have nine members of the community who help the Office of Neighborhood Safety in peacekeeping activities to include, school-based intervention, parole and probation support, street outreach, parent support, neighborhood and resident support.

    For helping Richmond ONS with these activities, those nine members recieve a monthly stipend.

    Make of that what you will, but it isn't the same as being paid to be nice.
    All behold that fancy strutting peacock, the bake sale diva...

  9. #9
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    I will say this, though... if conservatives do favor jailing them over paying them to stay out of trouble; it only further shows that the "tax money" arguments that conservatives like to use are only cover-ups for other motives.
    Disagree with the concept you are getting at. I don't think that anyone saying that paying / incentivizing people to not break the law could be wasteful implies an ulterior motive or hidden agenda as opposed to favoring the rule of law.

    One way of looking at it would be that essentially the municipality is paying 'shake down' money to criminals ... which is essentially extortion. It may cost more money to enforce the law, and potentially jail someone ... but what does society at large lose if we essentially allow society to be extorted by a criminal element?


    Quote Originally Posted by Absinthe Anecdote View Post
    Again, the city of Richmond, California isn't paying anyone to act nice. They have nine members of the community who help the Office of Neighborhood Safety in peacekeeping activities to include, school-based intervention, parole and probation support, street outreach, parent support, neighborhood and resident support.

    For helping Richmond ONS with these activities, those nine members recieve a monthly stipend.
    In that regard, they are being paid for their work with / for the community, no issue with them being compensated for their efforts.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Disagree with the concept you are getting at. I don't think that anyone saying that paying / incentivizing people to not break the law could be wasteful implies an ulterior motive or hidden agenda as opposed to favoring the rule of law.

    One way of looking at it would be that essentially the municipality is paying 'shake down' money to criminals ... which is essentially extortion. It may cost more money to enforce the law, and potentially jail someone ... but what does society at large lose if we essentially allow society to be extorted by a criminal element?




    In that regard, they are being paid for their work with / for the community, no issue with them being compensated for their efforts.
    I think we've all come to understand and expect that the OP and his sources mischaracterize the issue....I found it pretty uncharacteristic that they claim the program has been successful....reducing homicides from 62 to 11!

    nevertheless...it does sound like "paying bad guys to be good" just isn't what is happening
    The Voice of Reason

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •