Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:DF, we are not that far apart. The police should not be be the agency making decisions on guilt. That would be a jury or judge. If a law is violated, it is the responsibility of the police to bring suspects to the justice system, not pass judgement.

If a law is in place, then follow and prosecute it if violated. If that is not what is desired, then get rid of it.

I am fine with judges having discretion. Police and prosecutors, not so much.

Police officers have to have discretion. The more mandatory arrests police officers have to make, the more the courts will be clogged with cases that should not be there. Cops are the "common sense" that the lawmakers often can't squeeze into the written law.

freeman3 wrote:http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-July-2015-CA-Economy-Rankings-2014.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

As for recent rise in crime rates California has had to find ways to release non-violent prisoners to comply with federal court orders regarding prison over-crowding. And of course there has been a long drop in crime rates in California.

As for welfare, maybe those whites that fled the city are realizing that there not a lot of jobs in the Inland Empire...And at least we take care of our people in need.

Ad hominem describes the Hanson piece, as he writes from his cushy office at Stanford...

Actually, they are releasing violent prisoners, gang-members, and drug dealers. That's why crime is going up.

“A significant number of people who have been convicted of violent offenses aren’t violent people,” said Joe Margulies, a visiting professor of law and government at Cornell University who is working on a book about criminal justice reform. “People who never hurt anyone, who never confronted a victim, can nevertheless be convicted of violent crimes.”
This might seem strange, but there are criminal statutes all over the country that routinely result in defendants being classified as “violent” in the eyes of the law even though most people would never describe their deeds that way. Many crimes are legally considered violent “even if no force is used, let alone injury suffered,” said Jonathan Simon, the director of the Center for the Study of Law & Society at the University of California in Berkeley, in an email. He added, “violence is a much more capacious legal category than most people assume.”
One example of a crime that’s legally defined as “violent” in many states even though it doesn’t necessarily involve any actual violence is illegal gun possession. Other examples include burglarizing an occupied dwelling or serving as a getaway driver while someone else commits an armed robbery. Statutory rape stemming from consensual sex between an adult and a minor is also typically classified as a violent offense.
Perhaps the best illustration of how a not-necessarily-violent person can be found guilty of a violent crime involves “felony murder.” In many states, you can be convicted of felony murder for having been present when someone you are affiliated with committed a homicide, even if you never touched a weapon, let alone actually killed someone. Critics of “felony murder” laws argue that while you may well deserve to go to prison for being part of such a crime, you don’t deserve the same label as the trigger man.
“Tens of thousands of people in California are serving life sentences for this crime,” said Petersilia, who is the co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center and a member of the Department of Justice Scientific Advisory Board. “If you’re at a party and gang activity breaks out and someone gets shot, all the people who were there—everyone who came with that person who did the shooting, or was part of their gang—can then be convicted of felony murder.”

freeman3 wrote:California is under a federal court order to release second strikers (prior strike with a current non-violent felony) at 50% time if that is what is what you're referring to. If you can be more specific about other releases of violent prisoners I'll respond to that.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Actually, they are releasing violent prisoners, gang-members, and drug dealers. That's why crime is going up.

First I doubt you can provide evidence that crime is going up due to this.... why don't you try and substantiate that part of your claim?

bbauska wrote:Two things:
Danivon, if we can only speak about existing law, and not opinion of what we think the law should be, then this will be a very quiet place indeed.

DF, we are not that far apart. The police should not be be the agency making decisions on guilt. That would be a jury or judge. If a law is violated, it is the responsibility of the police to bring suspects to the justice system, not pass judgement.

If a law is in place, then follow and prosecute it if violated. If that is not what is desired, then get rid of it.

I am fine with judges having discretion. Police and prosecutors, not so much.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Two things:
Danivon, if we can only speak about existing law, and not opinion of what we think the law should be, then this will be a very quiet place indeed.

No-one is telling you you cannot speak of it.

But I want you to at least show some evidence on what the law is that you say SF is not enforcing

DF, we are not that far apart. The police should not be be the agency making decisions on guilt. That would be a jury or judge. If a law is violated, it is the responsibility of the police to bring suspects to the justice system, not pass judgement.

If a law is in place, then follow and prosecute it if violated. If that is not what is desired, then get rid of it.

So what is the law in place?

I am fine with judges having discretion. Police and prosecutors, not so much.

Unless they have unlimited resources, there will always be a limit. And if the police or prosecutors believe action is against the public interest, or is likely to fail and so be a big waste of time and money, then they should not have to.

If there is a challenge to such decisions, then that should be heard.

Seems to me that we have an "is" -"ought" problem.

Doctor Fate wrote:This may be what he's talking about, but I'll leave it up to Bbauska.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/21/san-f ... le-murder/

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:This may be what he's talking about, but I'll leave it up to Bbauska.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/21/san-f ... le-murder/

Maybe it is what sparked bbauska's original question...

But I didn't ask for a citation of the case, but a reference to the federal law(s) that are at issue.

Whatever their current conviction was, they are largely responsible for the uptick in crime. When you put that many crooks and gangsters on the streets, they do what they know best

freeman3 wrote:And still no reference to the federal law being violated by San Francisco...

rickyp wrote:Fate

Whatever their current conviction was, they are largely responsible for the uptick in crime. When you put that many crooks and gangsters on the streets, they do what they know best

.

That depends. The studies done on recidivism in the past have included prisoners turned back for parole violations, as well as new crimes. If someone had been imprisoned for a drug offence then they could go back for a drug offence.
Point being that if the laws were imprisoning people before were sending too many of the wrong people to jail then they were sending too many BACK to jail too.
Having looked into the various studies, I admit you probably are right that the uptick in crime is due in large part to released prisoners. (Increased homelessness is probably the other culprit) Mostly because they are released with no opportunities to secure decent employment, and with little help in adjusting to a new life...
Whats interesting is that the most violent offenders who are released, murderers, almost never re-offend.
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/2 ... rceration/