SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DC police chief offers simple solution to get homicide rates down: 'Keep violent people in jail'
The D.C. Council Chairman just pulled legislation Monday that would have reduced maximum penalties and abolished minimum penalties for various crimesMetropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee gave a simple solution for what Washington, D.C., can do differently to get homicides down Monday: "Keep violent people in jail."
Contee was speaking along with Mayor Muriel Bowser at Mayoral Public Safety Media Availability to discuss crime in the District. He responded to a reporter's question about how to address increased homicides rates in the city.
"What we got to do, if we really want to see homicides go down, is keep bad guys with guns in jail. Because when they're in jail, they can't be in communities shooting people. So when people talk about what we gonna do different, or what we should do different, what we need to do different, that’s the thing that we need to do different," Contee said.
"We need to keep violent people in jail. Right now, the average homicide suspect has been arrested eleven times prior to them committing a homicide," the chief continued. "That is a problem. That is a problem."
Repeat offenders are a problem in the nation's capital. Last month, Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., called out the city's elected officials over their soft on crime policies after she was assaulted by a homeless man. She was his thirteenth victim.
"I got attacked by someone who the District of Columbia has not prosecuted fully over the course of almost a decade, over the course of 12 assaults before mine that morning," Craig said at the time. "I mean, it wasn’t even in every instance that he got 10 days or 30 days. Many times, the charges were completely dropped before any justice was achieved at all."
Last year, D.C. hit 200 murders in consecutive years for the first time since 2003.
Among the topics covered during Monday's press conference included the apparent defeat of the D.C. City Council's attempt to soften penalties on violent crimes through revisions to the criminal code.
The crime bill would have reduced maximum penalties for violent crimes such as burglaries, robberies and carjackings, along with abolishing minimum sentences for most crimes. It faced backlash even from some liberals with Bowser vetoing it in January, though the city council overrode her veto.
Monday, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson pulled the controversial crime bill after the U.S. House voted to block it and President Biden said he would not veto Congress' decision.
The U.S. Senate may still vote on the legislation with the potential for up to 20 Democrats to side with Republicans in voting against the bill. However, it is unclear if the Senate still can vote on the bill as a symbolic gesture given that it was pulled by the chairman.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday March 09, @01:31AM
I think this bill could be part of a more focused approach. The problem is not that laws aren't too soft or harsh, but rather that laws aren't being enforced. Softening laws that you weren't going to enforce combined with strong enforcement of the new laws would work better than just letting things continue to slide.
But adjusting penalties for crimes without actually doing more to catch those who commit crime is a pointless exercise.
I can't tell from this story, if they are trying a more serious approach to crime or not.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Thursday March 09, @02:14AM (3 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 09, @04:33PM (2 children)
I think conservatives would take a more gooder approach.
Prisoners should be able to do enough labor to earn their keep. Otherwise they get permanently confined to the prison cemetery.
While Republicans can get over Trump's sexual assaults, affairs, and vulgarity; they cannot get over Obama being black.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday March 09, @06:26PM (1 child)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, @11:28PM
And sex...
(Score: 2, Troll) by Woodherd on Thursday March 09, @08:37AM (4 children)
If I wanted to read what passes for news at Fox News, I would go there. No need to relay it to SoylentNews.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09, @12:17PM
You clicked the link, stop your whining.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 09, @06:29PM
Discussing it here allows us to point out how stupid it is without giving Fox News-Flavored Entertainment Product any advertising revenue.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday March 10, @08:11AM
Yet you came here and chose to read it. That is surprising and unusual for a new community member.
(Score: 2) by Taxi Dudinous on Thursday March 09, @01:59PM (1 child)
Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee
So, populate the prisons with gun wielding, homicidal convicts. Seems to me this would gradually reduce prison populations, saving tax dollars. Prison currency could become bullets instead of cigarettes. Less money to spend on prisoner health care that way. This would also be a major deterrent for anyone who might be inclined to commit a crime which might result in incarceration. Much better than the old Scared Straight campaign. I say, this Contee fellow is a genius!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 09, @02:30PM
Hey, I saw a movie or 2 just like that. Just take a look at "Gamer" with Gerard Butler. It's an interesting dystopia.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 09, @04:51PM (17 children)
Dear Runaway, in the past, on my journal you have argued against a permaban on passengers that disrupt airline frights, have violent outbursts, and even pull out the hair and break the teeth of stewardesses.
Somehow a permanent no-fly ban and an FAA mandatory $37,000 fine for these cretians [biblegateway.com] seemed like too much. But now it is acceptable for someone to be incarcerated for life because of one violent outburst? Having a bad day, as you argued? It's not so bad that they try to open the aircraft door at 37,000 feet, justifying their $37,000 fine. I'm sure none of the other passengers would mind or be permanently scarred, if not permanently injured.
Why should we allow repeat offenders on airline frights?
How many of the Jan 6 domestic terrorists count as violent people? Some of them in advance, instructed others to bring a heavy lead pipe, just be sure you put a flag on the end of it. (I've seen that video personally.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I don't have a problem with putting clearly violent people in prison. Even for a long time. (although it is a much more complicated discussion than one sentence.) But wouldn't putting these people in prison have an effect on the outcome of future elections? An effect on future elections that you would find distressing? Or should these people be able to vote from prison? The violent inmates must be represented by representatives who encourage more violence to keep the prisons profitable.
While Republicans can get over Trump's sexual assaults, affairs, and vulgarity; they cannot get over Obama being black.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09, @05:04PM (16 children)
Maybe you're right Danny. Forget about incarceration. Instead, let's just form some vigilante groups, and deal with the miscreants permanently.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 09, @05:24PM (15 children)
Your sarcasm would work a bit better if you weren't constantly advocating for justice via armed "good guy with guns" vigilantism.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 09, @06:00PM (14 children)
I meant no sarcasm. Vigilante justice WILL HAPPEN if things continue the way they are proceeding. I was mocking Danny for basically saying what I've been saying. Forget locking up criminals, just blow them into eternity when they attack you. There is no recidivism among criminals with multiple .45 holes in them. 9 mm and 00 buckshot work pretty well, too.
Maybe you should read some nice dystopian novels to get a feel for how marauders should be dealt with.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 09, @06:06PM
Sure bro, right up until some bullets start flying your way when you'll conveniently rediscover how much of a law and order conservative you are.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 09, @08:22PM
Algorithm: everyone who touches a gun should be shot. (with a gun)
Repeat until no more guns.
Or would it be a while loop?
While Republicans can get over Trump's sexual assaults, affairs, and vulgarity; they cannot get over Obama being black.
(Score: -1) by billbellum on Thursday March 09, @10:19PM (1 child)
We have already seen Runaway dissing the police, and instead calling on his family and neighbors (AKA, his "clan") when there is a Drag Queen story hour in his vicinity. Not surprising he is endorsing the extra-judicial killing of 50 million liberals. Anarchist, or Traitor? I thought he took an oath?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09, @11:36PM
Aren't you like a 378th incarnation of he who will not be named?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday March 10, @08:36AM (9 children)
Vigilantes don't wait until they are attacked.
So dangerous armed people should be shot - but doesn't that make the vigilante a target also? After the first shot is fired the vigilante become a dangerous armed person, it doesn't really matter if anybody is actually hit. A man with a gun firing in public is a dangerous armed person. We shall ignore for the time being the judge/jury/executioner aspects of this.
I don't think you understand how this will work out. There again, it might have something going for it after all.....
Judging by the news reports I keep seeing, some police do this now, even if the attacker is unarmed or not even attacking them.
As an aside, is your middle name 'Kyle'?
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 10, @02:11PM (8 children)
Orly? Perhaps you are confusing "vigilante" with "mob"?
Uhhhh - no. Not a legitimate target, at any rate.
Blame the Supreme Court from decades ago, who came up with that 'qualified immunity' bullshit. That decision is directly responsible for a lot of crap that happens around the nation, such as you describe.
Sorry, no. But I'd be proud if he were my boy.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Friday March 10, @03:54PM (7 children)
From your own definition. They punish those 'suspected' of law breaking. No evidence required. No, it seems that I was correct with my previous statements. As I also hinted last time - they, and you it seems, want to be the judge, jury and executioner.
An unauthorised person firing a weapon in a public place is a danger to all around him - he becomes a valid target. Hopefully there will be one of your 'good guys with a gun' there to shoot him? Ah but then he will become.... You get my drift.
Reminds me of the activities of the KKK. They didn't require much in the way of evidence either. Keep going - you will soon move the USA back to the middle of the previous century.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 11, @02:06AM (6 children)
Good luck with that. Sounds like your instantaneous on-the-spot decision making could get you into trouble at some point. Random shooter starts blazing away - John Q. Citizen intervenes and puts an end to the threat - you point a gun at John Q - how in hell does John know that you aren't working with the random shooter? You've just started another gun fight, distinctly different from the first fight in which random shooter was put down.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 11, @06:39AM (5 children)
Exactly the point I was trying to make. How does 'good guy with a gun' know who is another good guy? Vigilantes are NOT the answer.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 11, @01:22PM (4 children)
Obviously, your solution is to assume anyone who has a gun is a bad guy, so you shoot them all. Trigger happy and blood thirsty, much? A more mature, and responsible idea, would be 'don't shoot anyone unless you see them do something bad, or at least threaten to do something bad'. It sorta grows out of the basic rules of gun safety.
https://gunpros.com/gun-safety-rules/ [gunpros.com]
Hunters do this routinely. They don't shoot elk in deer season, they don't shoot squirrels in rabbit season, they don't shoot at sounds in the brush, etc ad nauseum. Soldiers, police, security guards all manage to do that most of the time. I managed to teach my own kids how to use firearms safely - not one of them has put out their eyes, or shot up a school, or robbed a bank, or even get involved in a shootout.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday March 11, @02:02PM (3 children)
No, my solution is exactly the same as most sane people - don't shoot anybody. It isn't your right to do so unless you are directly being threatened.
You are potentially taking a life if you do, and you are doing so without necessarily having the full picture of what is happening. If you see 2 people and one is shooting the other then you might assume that the one shooting is committing the crime. That is exactly what has gone wrong with many vigilante actions. If you are unaware that the person who is being shot actually has the trigger for a bomb in his hand but you cannot see it then you have made an incorrect deduction. If however the person being shot is, for example, an undercover policeman or simply a passer-by who is being shot because of who or where they are, then the person shooting is committing the crime.
Nobody is guilty of a crime until it has been proven in court. Until then they are only accused of having committed a crime.
Once a life has been taken it cannot be given back. Stop playing at being cowboys. If they are on your property and/or directly threatening you then perhaps you are justified but in almost every other instance you can simply be wrong.
Over 100 Mass Shootings Have Hit U.S. So Far This Year—In Worst Start To Year In Decade [soylentnews.org] All of the 'good guys with guns' haven't made a difference so far this year, in fact things are getting worse. Your claims cannot be substantiated by any facts, only your misguided belief that carrying a weapon makes you a man. It doesn't, it only makes you more likely to be a killer, albeit possibly unintentionally.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 11, @07:35PM (2 children)
And, that is at the heart of the gun debate. In the UK, you do not have a right to use deadly force to defend yourself. In the US you do have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. In the UK, self defense is not a legitimate reason to own a gun. In the US, the Second Amendment says you need no reason to own a gun. However, the "liberal" party in our country has put up so many obstacles to owning, or carrying, or possessing a gun, that in many places, that the Second Amendment is all but meaningless.
However, you slightly missed the target with the part I quoted. It is your right to stop a threat to another person's life. Self defense laws don't only apply to a threat to your own body. You can defend your spouse, your children, an acquaintance, or even a person you don't even know. We have a number of heroes who have been praised for ending a threat to other people, when their own lives may or may not have been at risk.
But . . . we were discussing vigilante justice, I believe. Unless the cops get shit under control, it is going to happen. Vigilantes might organize into a large body of people, or they may just coagulate (with no real organization) into small pockets here and there. But, the neighborhood thug is going to go just too far, and someone will take care of him.
Is that right or wrong? I don't have a real answer, but it is life. It is reality, and it can't be wished away. I'm surprised that some of the high profile cases in the past 2 or 3 years haven't resulted in vigilante justice.
Here's one version of a case that took place in Missouri. https://allthatsinteresting.com/ken-mcelroy [allthatsinteresting.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday March 12, @06:32AM
Most people know very well that it is wrong. The fact that someone is 'going just too far' (He believes in something that you do not? He supports a different political party? His skin is too dark? He looks 'guilty'.) is not a crime. Without justice any action is either an assault or, ultimately, murder. Your own laws state that without evidence and the right to face his accusers in court then there is no justice.
Wrong. You must use the minimum force necessary but, if that happens to be deadly, then it is possible. It is rarely necessary. However, you must me prepared to defend your actions in a court of law. Vigilantes don't do this. They often use excessive force to 'take care of someone' and they certainly do not plan on having to justify it in a court of law.
Somebody using a weapon is not taught to use minimum force but to aim for the body mass. When it gets to the shooting stage it has already gone too far on many occasions.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 12, @10:12PM
You're never going to get to commit justifiable homicide. Boo stupid hoo. Die mad, you salty little psychopath.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...