Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/03 20:45:15
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/02/04 07:28:56
Subject: Re:Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
Especially when the average gang-banging, drug dealing, hood rat can make nine grand in a single night (and then some). And these fine examples of community conscious individuals make up a large portion of those incarcerated in the United States.
It might work for the tiny handful who are hell-bent on not going back to the pen. But career criminals? Not a chance in hell.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2016/02/04 08:26:12
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
As mentioned a number of times previously, the people in this programme are not career criminals.
To get back to the topic, I read the Mother Jones article. It is very balanced and in no way is a whitewash of the programme.
The main criticism is that at one point it mentions a previous successfull intervention programme of this type, and says it has not been able to be replicated, but it gives no more information as to why. One way to try and judge the possible success of such programmes is to look at as many as possible to see if they were successful or not, and why.
Compel wrote: So, it's basically "Jobseekers Allowance" but for (potential) criminals?
Considering various costs involbed, maybe if you get some outside funding to help -Insurance companies, perhaps?
It might not be that crazy an idea...
Except do you really want to be labelling people as potential criminals? That could seriously hurt their chances of actually finding employment.
Most of the people targeted for this program are criminals. They've have contact with the law and not in a good way. Violence is also a factor, here.
The program is an attempt at reform vs. the revolving door of recidivism. They're trying to prevent 'high risk' first offenders from becoming violent career criminals.
I was responding to suggestions that it be used to target people before they turn to crime. Unless I totally misunderstood what was being said.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: I was responding to suggestions that it be used to target people before they turn to crime. Unless I totally misunderstood what was being said.
It's not a "pre-crime" program. It's a program intended to identify violent offenders who are likely to re-offend and offer them an incentive to participate in intensive "life counseling" and reform themselves.
2016/02/04 22:07:47
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
Xenomancers wrote: This might be a stupid thought. Wouldn't this encourage people to commit crimes so one day they can receive cash for NOT committing them?
You're right, that's a pretty stupid thought.
2016/02/04 23:04:15
Subject: Re:Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
oldravenman3025 wrote: Especially when the average gang-banging, drug dealing, hood rat can make nine grand in a single night (and then some). And these fine examples of community conscious individuals make up a large portion of those incarcerated in the United States.
TIL that average drug dealer can make in excess of $3.4 million dollars a year. You would think none of them would be in jail, since that would presumably buy the finest lawyers.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/04 23:40:14
Subject: Re:Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
oldravenman3025 wrote: Especially when the average gang-banging, drug dealing, hood rat can make nine grand in a single night (and then some). And these fine examples of community conscious individuals make up a large portion of those incarcerated in the United States.
TIL that average drug dealer can make in excess of $3.4 million dollars a year. You would think none of them would be in jail, since that would presumably buy the finest lawyers.
But none of them work full time. These are thugs we are talking about, and everyone knows thugs are lazy.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/02/05 00:17:31
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
Even if they only worked one day a week that's still $432,000 a year.
Is this going to be one of those threads where white people who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually on toys show their complete ignorance of what it's like to be poor by assuming that drug dealing is a lucrative career and serial-convicts commit crimes because they're just inherently immoral and love going to prison?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/05 00:22:55
2016/02/05 00:43:03
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
BlaxicanX wrote: Even if they only worked one day a week that's still $432,000 a year.
Is this going to be one of those threads where white people who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually on toys show their complete ignorance of what it's like to be poor by assuming that drug dealing is a lucrative career and serial-convicts commit crimes because they're just inherently immoral and love going to prison?
Well, the alternative is to accept that my current worldview is flawed and that everyone can't just bootstrap themselves into a comfortable life. Poor people deserve to be poor because they're lazy, right?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/02/05 00:51:53
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
There's certainly a logic to the program. If the problem with rehab programs is getting the people to attend, then I guess this could be very effective. However, it relies on the rehab programs themselves being effective. Either way it's certainly worth an experiment.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Especially when the average gang-banging, drug dealing, hood rat can make nine grand in a single night (and then some). And these fine examples of community conscious individuals make up a large portion of those incarcerated in the United States.
There have been studies on the actual incomes of people working in drug gangs, and most earn less than minimum wage. The guys at the top make a lot of money, but as you move down the rate of pay gets very low very quickly. It's a bit like if people thought a job at McDonalds was lucrative, because they only ever thought of the CEO's income.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/05 05:17:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/29 05:39:16
Subject: Re:Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
oldravenman3025 wrote: Especially when the average gang-banging, drug dealing, hood rat can make nine grand in a single night (and then some). And these fine examples of community conscious individuals make up a large portion of those incarcerated in the United States.
There have been studies on the actual incomes of people working in drug gangs, and most earn less than minimum wage. The guys at the top make a lot of money, but as you move down the rate of pay gets very low very quickly. It's a bit like if people thought a job at McDonalds was lucrative, because they only ever thought of the CEO's income.
Are you saying that there isn't much difference between joining a gang and joining Amway or Herbalife?
2016/02/05 06:21:47
Subject: Re:Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
d-usa wrote: Are you saying that there isn't much difference between joining a gang and joining Amway or Herbalife?
There's a lot more dignity in drug running, but other than that its the same, yeah.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/05 09:22:04
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
Putting on one side the moral argument, the pragmatic view is that if this idea works, and works better than other ideas (like prison) then it should be done.
The difficulties are how to define and measure if any of these ideas work, and the cost/benefit.
The USA for example imprisons (also puts to death) a higher proportion of its population than any other modern pluralistic liberal democratic country, Does this result in a lower crime rate? That's hard to say, since there is no single way that crimes are recorded in all the countries we want to look at.
However, I believe that part of this particular idea is to focus on a small number of the hardest cases, which might be seen as picking the low-hanging fruit first. If this is true, it wouldn't be successful if extended to a very large number of potential criminals.
BlaxicanX wrote: Even if they only worked one day a week that's still $432,000 a year.
Is this going to be one of those threads where white people who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually on toys show their complete ignorance of what it's like to be poor by assuming that drug dealing is a lucrative career and serial-convicts commit crimes because they're just inherently immoral and love going to prison?
Growing up poor is not exclusive to one race. And "white people" are not immune to poverty either. Lets not turn this into a race baiting thread.
2016/02/05 13:07:13
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
d-usa wrote: Are you saying that there isn't much difference between joining a gang and joining Amway or Herbalife?
I'm not sure if you've read Freakonomics or not - if not, it's a great read - but that's almost exactly the argument they make. Selling drugs is essentially a pyramid scheme, the street level guys aren't really making anything - $20-30k a year at best. They do get to make their own hours though, so there is that.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/06 04:12:30
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
And if you can find anywhere in this thread where I made such an assertion, I guess your post might have some substance- I doubt you'll be able to though.
Kilkrazy wrote: Putting on one side the moral argument, the pragmatic view is that if this idea works, and works better than other ideas (like prison) then it should be done.
The difficulties are how to define and measure if any of these ideas work, and the cost/benefit.
The USA for example imprisons (also puts to death) a higher proportion of its population than any other modern pluralistic liberal democratic country, Does this result in a lower crime rate? That's hard to say, since there is no single way that crimes are recorded in all the countries we want to look at.
However, I believe that part of this particular idea is to focus on a small number of the hardest cases, which might be seen as picking the low-hanging fruit first. If this is true, it wouldn't be successful if extended to a very large number of potential criminals.
My first thought when reading the proposal is that it's a step in the right direction but its impact will probably be minimal as it's really only a bandaid on the real problem. We do have fairly solid evidence that there's a solid correlation between crime and socioeconomic status. This proposal is essentially a roundabout way of saying "if we make these criminals less poor they'll commit less crime". It's true to an extent but the real goal should be to solve that socioeconomic distress before it leads to crime rather than retroactively. The idea that most criminals commit crime simply for its own sake is bs but I don't find it hard to believe that once an individual forms a habit of committing crime and sheds that social conditioning that makes breaking the law unattractive, they are more susceptible to recidivism.
2016/02/06 15:34:44
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
And if you can find anywhere in this thread where I made such an assertion, I guess your post might have some substance- I doubt you'll be able to though.
I did, it was in your text that I quoted.
You also omitted this part of my quote which was sort of important; "And "white people" are not immune to poverty either". We have people from all races, creeds, nationalities, and religions who spend their spare cash on war dollies. But if you want to just call out "white people" that is your choice, and says more about you than you realize.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/06 15:36:50
2016/02/06 19:40:59
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
Your response says more about your reading comprehension then you realize.
Can you explain why you'd read an inquiry that's prefaced with qualifiers such as "this thread" and "white people who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually on toys" and interpret it as an assertion that all the white people in the world are not poor?
If you read a statement along the lines of "everyone in this room is black and taller than average" you would assume that the author is asserting that all black people are taller than average?
I eagerly await your response.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/06 19:43:03
2016/02/06 20:52:53
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
BlaxicanX wrote: Your response says more about your reading comprehension then you realize.
Can you explain why you'd read an inquiry that's prefaced with qualifiers such as "this thread" and "white people who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually on toys" and interpret it as an assertion that all the white people in the world are not poor?
If you read a statement along the lines of "everyone in this room is black and taller than average" you would assume that the author is asserting that all black people are taller than average?
I eagerly await your response.
If you're trying to cast that stone you need to answer your own question. You asked if this was going to be a thread about white people making assumptions about drug dealing being a lucrative career. You injected the notion of white people "who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually". You singled out one race and one race alone and their disposable income. All I did was point out your race baiting as a way of poisoning the well.
Because someone felt the need to say;
"Is this going to be one of those threads where white people who have so much disposable income that they blow thousands of dollars annually on toys show their complete ignorance of what it's like to be poor by assuming that drug dealing is a lucrative career and serial-convicts commit crimes because they're just inherently immoral and love going to prison?"
Why he felt the need to inject race into the discussion is a great question
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/06 22:21:33
2016/02/06 22:44:46
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
City officials have suspended operations of the Safe Streets anti-violence program in East Baltimore after police officers found seven guns and drugs stashed inside the Monument Street office.
Police said a robbery investigation led them to the office, and two employees were among those arrested. The suspension sidelines the program's work in East Baltimore at a time when gun violence has been spiking.
Safe Streets, a grant-funded program under the city's Health Department, uses ex-felons in an effort to stem crime. The program has been lauded for keeping violence at a minimum in the four neighborhoods where it operates, and some officials have urged its replication across the city.
The program has had trouble in the past, with offices previously suspended in 2010 and 2013 amid criminal allegations against employees. It has also faced criticism over its recruiting practices.
"Safe Streets works because employees are often ex-offenders who have credibility in the neighborhoods they serve," Health Commissioner Leana Wen said Tuesday. "This incident is a reflection on the individuals involved, and should not take away the great successes of Safe Streets and the role it has played in reducing violence."
The three other Safe Streets sites in the city remain open. Wen said the Health Department will conduct a "full debriefing" on the entire program.
Howard Libit, a spokesman for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, said, "The Mayor remains supportive of the program and the effective way it has been able to reach many people in our city and reduce crime. But she recognizes the program must be vigilant with respect to the activities of the program's participants and staff members."
The city had been in talks with the Abell Foundation about creating a new Safe Streets zone in Sandtown-Winchester, where 25-year-old Freddie Gray was arrested. His death from a spinal cord injury sustained in police custody sparked protests, rioting and looting. The foundation approved a $180,000 matching grant to help fund the expansion, but the city has not made a final decision.
Police said this week's investigation began when they were called about 2:26 a.m. Monday to the intersection of Hillen and Forrest streets, just south of East Monument Street, where a man said he was just robbed at gunpoint by two men in a gray SUV.
Soon after, an officer spotted the vehicle parked in the 2300 block of E. Monument and saw men dart inside the Safe Streets office. When officers eventually raided the office, they found guns, heroin, cocaine, and other items used in the manufacturing and sale of drugs, including cutting agents and scales, police said.
Nine people were arrested at the site, including two Safe Streets employees, who Wen said have been terminated.
They were identified as Artez Harris, who had been a "violence interrupter" for Safe Streets since September 2013, and Ricky Evans, who had worked for Safe Streets since February.
Both were charged with drug and gun offenses and were jailed. Neither had an attorney listed in online court records.
Court records show Harris, 37, and Evans, 35, were co-defendants in a drug case in 2007. Harris pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 years in prison, with all but two years suspended, while all charges against Evans were dropped.
Evans has been charged twice with murder, and both times acquitted. In 1999 he was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder for the killing of 21-year-old Harry Brown in the first block of N. Streeper St. He was charged with first-degree murder in another case in 2002, and three years later was found not guilty.
Interim Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said police will be running ballistics tests on the recovered guns to see if they were used in incidents of violence in the city.
James Bond, the president and CEO of Living Classrooms, which oversees the East Baltimore program, called Wen's decision to suspend the program pending a review "appropriate," but said he still believes in the program's model and looks forward to restarting the work.
"We would hope that this would not overshadow the great success the program has had in the past," Bond said.
This year alone, Safe Streets East's interrupters — including Harris and Evans — have facilitated 136 "remediations" of incidents that likely would have resulted in violence without their intervention, Bond said.
"They were integral in interrupting violence in this community," Bond said of Harris and Evans. "They were very skilled at that."
In addition to the McElderry Park location, Safe Streets operates in Cherry Hill, Mondawmin and Park Heights.
Unlike other crime initiatives, Safe Streets generally keeps its distance from police to avoid the appearance that information gleaned in its community work is shared with law enforcement. However, a representative from the Police Department has a vote in hiring decisions.
In 2010, federal authorities tied Safe Streets' East Baltimore site to the Black Guerrilla Family gang, causing Rawlings-Blake to freeze funding for two sites. A task force appointed by the mayor to review the allegations could not substantiate them, and funding was restored.
The program's West Baltimore site was suspended three years later, after two outreach workers were arrested in less than two weeks.
Violence has spiked following Gray's death and charges against six officers involved in his arrest, drawing calls for Safe Streets to be replicated in other city neighborhoods. Rawlings-Blake last month pointed to the four neighborhoods with Safe Streets programs — including the site in Cherry Hill, which went more than a year without a homicide — as a success.
Wen also touted Safe Streets as part of a "cure" to violence in the city.
"Some have asked us about the 'risk' of employing individuals with criminal backgrounds," Wen wrote in an opinion article in The Baltimore Sun. "We do not see it as a risk but rather as a privilege to give returned citizens a second chance at hope and employment. Our employees are our best assets. They have truly walked in the shoes of the people we are serving."
Wen diverged slightly from that stance Tuesday, saying that "there is a risk for re-offense" by employees with a criminal past. But she maintained that there is potential for great reward.
In addition to Harris and Evans, charges were brought against seven others.
Barak Olds, 25, and Darren Brown, 23, have both been charged with assault and robbery in the initial incident that led police to the Safe Streets office. Both are in custody. Neither had an attorney listed in online court records.
Also charged with a range of crimes are Tavon Howard, 22; D'Aries Legette, 22; Gerald Reed, 19; David Warren, 23; and Sherri Jordan, 28.
I wonder why the Richmond one has been successful while others have not
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/06 22:56:42
2016/02/06 23:05:00
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
I wonder why the Richmond one has been successful while others have not
Because Baltimore is institutionally corrupt. So I am not surprised even successful programs would fail or become corrupt in Baltimore.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
2016/02/06 23:36:01
Subject: Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?
Time for a career in politics.
