| ▲ | tancop 2 hours ago |
| we dont need new punishments, the system is just backwards. for things like shoplifting and vandalism it should be double or triple damages with no prison. corporate fraud, cartels, pollution, big time tax evasion has to come with 20+ year sentences and fines based on your income like a traffic violation in norway. flat fines just dont work when the criminal is rich. in general we should be a lot more strict on sexual crimes (sa, trafficking, child abuse but not voluntary prostitution) and white collar/economic ones including wage theft, but less strict on drugs and property. drug possession and non commercial digital piracy should be decriminalized. violent crimes are mostly in the right place, the big problem there is racist prosecutors and ineffective anti gang programs not the laws themselves but we need to remove death penalty/life without parole everywhere they still exist. the point is we need a rebalance not a whole new untested mechanic. |
|
| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >for things like shoplifting and vandalism it should be double or triple damages with no prison What do you think the chances of being caught shoplifting is? If it's less than 50-33%, then you have the same problem as the OP where it makes sense to shoplift. |
| |
| ▲ | scottlamb an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > What do you think the chances of being caught shoplifting is? If it's less than 50-33%, then you have the same problem as the OP where it makes sense to shoplift. Don't we already? Police and DAs at least here in California are not serious about punishing shoplifters AFAICT. I hear people say this is specifically because of the 2014 Proposition 47 (raising the threshold for felony theft from $400 to $950). Not sure that's true (misdemeanor theft can still be punished by up to six months of jail time and/or up to a $1,000 fine, and California's current thresholds are similar to other states) but there was a federal mandate to address prison overcrowding, and California chose to do that by not having as many prisoners instead of building a ton more prisons. Prop 47, and perhaps some policy changes made with far less fanfare, were intended to achieve that. There's still more deterrent for misdemeanor shoplifting than for nationwide egg price-fixing though! | | |
| ▲ | mvdtnz 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | And do you think the situation in California is a good situation? | |
| ▲ | gruez 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Don't we already? So clearly we should... make it even more lenient? That's what OP was implying. |
| |
| ▲ | gopher_space an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The general public isn’t that relentlessly amoral. |
|
|
| ▲ | ksbd-pls-finish an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >in general we should be a lot more strict on sexual crimes (sa, trafficking, child abuse but not voluntary prostitution) and white collar/economic ones including wage theft, but less strict on drugs and property. drug possession and non commercial digital piracy should be decriminalized. Why? I mean, do you have a specific scientific research in mind, or is it something you feel is right? I mean, it makes sense to me, mostly, but "we should" presented without any evidence irks me a bit. |
| |
| ▲ | atmavatar 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | To start with, the war on drugs was initiated by Nixon as a way to target political enemies (hippies and non-whites). | | |
| ▲ | mikestew 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | [citation needed], and not the citation from an interview twenty years ago with a guy long dead, who quoted Erlichman in an unfinished book. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | DaedalusII 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| how are prosecutors racist - they only get to prosecute people arrested for committing crimes. they dont get to pick! |
| |
| ▲ | benregenspan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There is a whole area of research on this. Prosecutors have significant discretion around charging and (suggested) sentence, and this allows bias to creep in. I've heard people debate the quality of specific research on the size of the bias, but not the mere idea that bias is possible at all. | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 1) they can be selective with which arrests result in charges 2) prosecutors can tell police straight up what they will or won’t prosecute, which affects what crimes cops will investigate or make an arrest for | |
| ▲ | wetmore 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They get to pick the sentencing they are aiming for, and that can depend on race. | |
| ▲ | LadyCailin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They absolutely get to pick. They pick which cases they choose to prosecute, plea bargain, or dismiss, as well as what sentence they choose to ask for. | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They have discretion to not prosecute. I was nearly killed and left with significant injuries. The police conspired to undercharge and the prosecutor DGAF. | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | American Bar: Prosecutors confront ugly repercussions of bias - https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... - February 3rd, 2023 > The pervasive problems with racism in our criminal justice system has been clear. Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at nearly five times the rate of white Americans. > The systemic racism in the system starts before the first contact and continues through charging decisions, plea deals, conviction, sentencing recommendations, incarceration, release and beyond. | | |
| ▲ | cholmdomsky 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How do you respond when others use that information to instead assert "well of course they're incarcerated at a higher rate; they commit more, and worse crimes than -we- do!" | | |
|
|
