would you support police/natl guard on corners of overly violent neighborhoods?

[asaratis]

There is a method known as Community Policing which can be very effective. Cops are assigned to neighborhoods and walk a beat. They get to know the people - and develop relationships with honest ones who would like to see crime reduced. The visible presence sends a message to criminals that they have a higher likelihood of being caught - and one to the law-abiding folks that the police are there to provide a layer of protection. That layer is dependent, however, upon community involvement.

...community involvement and funding. Putting a policeman in every block is expensive and still likely not enough. Citizen deputies with unlimited carry permits would help. Issuing billy clubs to honest citizens, pepper spray to honest citizens, defense and retention lessons given to honest citizens...put enough people on the street with balls and means to stop criminals in the act, either by subduing and retaining the perp or leaving the perp dead on the scene.

Unless the honest people take a stand to transform their neighborhood, the police or national guard are only window dressing. Once they leave, it will revert back to whatever the particular pathologies were driven by the criminal element.

That's why the honest citizens should be armed and trained.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a method known as Community Policing which can be very effective. Cops are assigned to neighborhoods and walk a beat. They get to know the people - and develop relationships with honest ones who would like to see crime reduced. The visible presence sends a message to criminals that they have a higher likelihood of being caught - and one to the law-abiding folks that the police are there to provide a layer of protection. That layer is dependent, however, upon community involvement.

...community involvement and funding. Putting a policeman in every block is expensive and still likely not enough. Citizen deputies with unlimited carry permits would help. Issuing billy clubs to honest citizens, pepper spray to honest citizens, defense and retention lessons given to honest citizens...put enough people on the street with balls and means to stop criminals in the act, either by subduing and retaining the perp or leaving the perp dead on the scene.

Unless the honest people take a stand to transform their neighborhood, the police or national guard are only window dressing. Once they leave, it will revert back to whatever the particular pathologies were driven by the criminal element.

That's why the honest citizens should be armed and trained.

Obama raised a lot of red flags with a lot of us though when he proposed a civilian security force that was as well trained and well equipped as the U.S. Military. Of course he wanted control of this civilian force. I would be really uncomfortable if the civilian force was under anything other than local authority.

From the stats I've seen, a relatively small number of civilians have taken the training to qualify for concealed carry licenses in the states that allow that. Evenso, I believe violent crime has decreased in every state that has passed a concealed carry law and there have been essentially no cases of inappropriate behavior committed by any who qualified for the licenses.

That should tell us something right there.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No. A better idea would be make drugs legal. Then the gangs wouldn't be killing each other in the streets.

all drugs?....or just certain ones...

all. where in the constitution can the govenrment regulate what I put into my body?

so crack,heroin,all the hard stuff?.....1/4 of society would be in shambles,look at just how Alcohol has ripped up families and killed innocent people...so lets add to that...and then of course the tax payer will be footing the bill on the "rehabilitation" of those people also....hey Blu,Pot is one thing,Crack and Co. is another....Legalizing certain drugs will just add to the woes of society.....

 

[nraforlife]

................so crack,heroin,all the hard stuff?.....1/4 of society would be in shambles,look at just how Alcohol has ripped up families and killed innocent people....................

most of the illegals are less/much less toxic as a drug than is alcohol when it is used heavily. Legality would reduce violent crime, clear the jails and certainly not make addicts any more common or their lives worse.

 

[blu]

all drugs?....or just certain ones...

all. where in the constitution can the govenrment regulate what I put into my body?

so crack,heroin,all the hard stuff?.....1/4 of society would be in shambles,look at just how Alcohol has ripped up families and killed innocent people...so lets add to that...and then of course the tax payer will be footing the bill on the "rehabilitation" of those people also....hey Blu,Pot is one thing,Crack and Co. is another....Legalizing certain drugs will just add to the woes of society.....

where did the 1/4th come from? alcohol is more destructive than all drugs combined. we already foot rehab bills, but at least we wouldn't be paying to jail people who got caught with $10 worth of a drug. violence also would go down as people wouldn't be killed while attempting to buy $20 worth of a product.

 

[Defiant1]

As the title says, would you support "locking down" of violent neighborhoods? For example lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month (not much of a stretch near here in bad new orleans neighborhoods) and then after the threshold is passed, police and natl guard are stationed on every corner in the affected radius 24/7 for some amount of time. Would you be okay with this? I think it would definitely deter crime in the area and "starve" out some criminal as their money production abilities whether drugs, stealing&selling goods, prositution etc would basically be stifled.

This doesn't make any sense. Aren't these neighborhoods in democratically controlled cities? Haven't these cities been democratically controlled for years and years? Aren't these cities so blue that any vestige of conservatism has been driven out to the suburbs or further? Democrat leaders without Republican opposition are able to make any laws, pass any ordinances, levy any taxes.

These cities are shining examples of progressive ideals. Oases of paradise. Havens for the minorities and the down-trodden.

Stories like this must be lies put forth by the liars at Fox News.

 

[antagon]

its only been 12 years or so since the republicans have been in the hick game. now they've just about relinquished hopes of convincing urban voters that they are a mainstream party. we'll see in november.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is a method known as Community Policing which can be very effective. Cops are assigned to neighborhoods and walk a beat. They get to know the people - and develop relationships with honest ones who would like to see crime reduced. The visible presence sends a message to criminals that they have a higher likelihood of being caught - and one to the law-abiding folks that the police are there to provide a layer of protection. That layer is dependent, however, upon community involvement.

...community involvement and funding. Putting a policeman in every block is expensive and still likely not enough. Citizen deputies with unlimited carry permits would help. Issuing billy clubs to honest citizens, pepper spray to honest citizens, defense and retention lessons given to honest citizens...put enough people on the street with balls and means to stop criminals in the act, either by subduing and retaining the perp or leaving the perp dead on the scene.

Unless the honest people take a stand to transform their neighborhood, the police or national guard are only window dressing. Once they leave, it will revert back to whatever the particular pathologies were driven by the criminal element.

That's why the honest citizens should be armed and trained.

One of the best ways to reduce crime in any city is to do what Guliani did in NYC. One of the only things I like him on.

He believed in the "Broken Window" policy. You go after the quality of life crimes and reduce the damage that makes criminals and lowlifes feel welcome. You also put effort into keeping the community neat and tidy. Drive out the panhandlers, and you rid your neighborhood of crimes of opportunity, vandalism and other 'neighborhood' crimes that bring down public spirit and morale and cause people to lose interest in their neighborhoods. You drive out the loiterers and malcontents doing 'nothing' on street corners you cut down opportunities to deal and foment more serious trouble and hamper gang activities. Lastly, you take away or clean up poverty and criminal enablement. Crack down on pawn shops playing the shady edges, absentee slum lords not keeping track of their properties and letting them go to pot for squatters and the like. Eliminate aid to drug addicts and alcoholics who survive on government assistance and minor criminal activity by enforcing accountability for funds. Get the mentally ill to help. Make the deadbeats and human train wrecks want to look for life elsewhere that is easier, or force them to pull themselves up, or get them into programs that can hopefully get them back on the straight and narrow.

Then once these areas are under control, you can focus on real problems and concentrate police force that was once spread out doing trivial things and overrun by many of life's ills. Rekindling civic pride is a big deal, but it has to come from people valuing their homes, property and neighbors. To restart the desire to live in a better place is in everyone's heart except for those who have given up or have been allowed to slide through the cracks because of neglect on our parts.

Crime is both symptom and cause that can be cured or pushed back on many fronts. But often, prevention is the best cure of all.

 

[editec]

Crime isn't the problem.

Crime is the symptom of the problem in most cases.

Most of you are, I am assuming law abiding citizens.

Most of you also, I am again assuming, would have a LOT to lose (not only money, but social standing, too) if you were send to jail.

Well guess what?

Most career type criminals never had any of those things.

Not that that would stop me from putting criminals in prison, but hey, come!

Use your noggins for a change, folks.

People with nothing to lose and everything to gain by being criminal don't think like most of you do because there's no reason for them TO think like you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Crime isn't the problem.

Crime is the symptom of the problem in most cases.

No, crime is the problem.

There have been many times in our history in which poverty was much more real and prevalent than now, but crimes in all categories were much less. That was when society did not use being poor as an excuse for being dishonest or committing crimes.

Through most of our history, parents, churches, neighbors, teachers, everybody agreed on core values of honesty, integrity, and basic morality that did not inflict pain, suffering, or deprivation on others. All that has changed over the last few decades when criminals were viewed as 'victims' of society instead of people who make choices to hurt others rather than be good citizens.

When we again recognize that most crime is committed by people who don't care about the law or whether they violate the rights of others, we will begin to see crime drastically reduced even without increased enforcement.

Increased enforcement doesn't hurt either though as there will always be people who care about their own wants and desires and don't care much about anybody else.

 

[antagon]

Crime isn't the problem.

Crime is the symptom of the problem in most cases.

No, crime is the problem.

There have been many times in our history in which poverty was much more real and prevalent than now, but crimes in all categories were much less. That was when society did not use being poor as an excuse for being dishonest or committing crimes.

Through most of our history, parents, churches, neighbors, teachers, everybody agreed on core values of honesty, integrity, and basic morality that did not inflict pain, suffering, or deprivation on others. All that has changed over the last few decades when criminals were viewed as 'victims' of society instead of people who make choices to hurt others rather than be good citizens.

When we again recognize that most crime is committed by people who don't care about the law or whether they violate the rights of others, we will begin to see crime drastically reduced even without increased enforcement.

Increased enforcement doesn't hurt either though as there will always be people who care about their own wants and desires and don't care much about anybody else.

police and the justice system can deal with criminals. isnt that independent of the issues of poor education, lower opportunity, and even lower awareness of opportunities that do exist, value for life, and value for property which precipitate, as editec put it, crime as a symptom of their existence?

 

[nraforlife]

Being poor is neither an excuse nor an explanation for criminality

 

[Foxfyre]

Crime isn't the problem.

Crime is the symptom of the problem in most cases.

No, crime is the problem.

There have been many times in our history in which poverty was much more real and prevalent than now, but crimes in all categories were much less. That was when society did not use being poor as an excuse for being dishonest or committing crimes.

Through most of our history, parents, churches, neighbors, teachers, everybody agreed on core values of honesty, integrity, and basic morality that did not inflict pain, suffering, or deprivation on others. All that has changed over the last few decades when criminals were viewed as 'victims' of society instead of people who make choices to hurt others rather than be good citizens.

When we again recognize that most crime is committed by people who don't care about the law or whether they violate the rights of others, we will begin to see crime drastically reduced even without increased enforcement.

Increased enforcement doesn't hurt either though as there will always be people who care about their own wants and desires and don't care much about anybody else.

police and the justice system can deal with criminals. isnt that independent of the issues of poor education, lower opportunity, and even lower awareness of opportunities that do exist, value for life, and value for property which precipitate, as editec put it, crime as a symptom of their existence?

A disregard for the value and sanctity of life precipitates criminality, and that is a cultural thing, not an economic thing. Yes, perhaps someone will steal to keep their children from starving, but that isn't an issue in this country. Nobody has to steal in order to eat here.
Apart from those trapped in the insanity of addiction, almost all crime is a result of a breakdown of moral virtues as the norm. And that has nothing to do with poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or even a lack of awareness of opportunities.

I will give you a lack of value for life and a lack of respect for the right to one's own person and property as part of that equation.

 

[antagon]

No, crime is the problem.

There have been many times in our history in which poverty was much more real and prevalent than now, but crimes in all categories were much less. That was when society did not use being poor as an excuse for being dishonest or committing crimes.

Through most of our history, parents, churches, neighbors, teachers, everybody agreed on core values of honesty, integrity, and basic morality that did not inflict pain, suffering, or deprivation on others. All that has changed over the last few decades when criminals were viewed as 'victims' of society instead of people who make choices to hurt others rather than be good citizens.

When we again recognize that most crime is committed by people who don't care about the law or whether they violate the rights of others, we will begin to see crime drastically reduced even without increased enforcement.

Increased enforcement doesn't hurt either though as there will always be people who care about their own wants and desires and don't care much about anybody else.

police and the justice system can deal with criminals. isnt that independent of the issues of poor education, lower opportunity, and even lower awareness of opportunities that do exist, value for life, and value for property which precipitate, as editec put it, crime as a symptom of their existence?

A disregard for the value and sanctity of life precipitates criminality, and that is a cultural thing, not an economic thing. Yes, perhaps someone will steal to keep their children from starving, but that isn't an issue in this country. Nobody has to steal in order to eat here.
Apart from those trapped in the insanity of addiction, almost all crime is a result of a breakdown of moral virtues as the norm. And that has nothing to do with poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or even a lack of awareness of opportunities.

I will give you a lack of value for life and a lack of respect for the right to one's own person and property as part of that equation.

how do you explain the economic demography of criminals, then? the old 'idle mind s a devil's playground' factor targets the unemployed, less educated, poorer and persons less aware of opportunities availed to them disproportionately to those who have gainful employment and better education. like i had originally posed. value of life and a broader set of morality which extends from that must certainly play in to the decisions to commit crimes. i cant believe i didnt mention discipline and patience, originally. these two play, perhaps, the biggest role.

gainfully occupied, law-abiding persons aren't afforded that merely by virtue of their moral high ground, instead that they are part of rather than at the frayed edges of the fabric of our society makes us more likely complicit with what makes our lives work positively for us.

bend your theory to application. moral education is really all that's missing?

 

[antagon]

Being poor is neither an excuse nor an explanation for criminality

i strongly believe that the same factors which make people broke-asses lead to criminal activity. where it takes money to make money, among them is being broke to start with.

 

[antagon]

where did the 1/4th come from? alcohol is more destructive than all drugs combined. we already foot rehab bills, but at least we wouldn't be paying to jail people who got caught with $10 worth of a drug. violence also would go down as people wouldn't be killed while attempting to buy $20 worth of a product.

hyperbole and wishful thinking comprise, what, 80 - 90% of your position?

 

[Foxfyre]

police and the justice system can deal with criminals. isnt that independent of the issues of poor education, lower opportunity, and even lower awareness of opportunities that do exist, value for life, and value for property which precipitate, as editec put it, crime as a symptom of their existence?

A disregard for the value and sanctity of life precipitates criminality, and that is a cultural thing, not an economic thing. Yes, perhaps someone will steal to keep their children from starving, but that isn't an issue in this country. Nobody has to steal in order to eat here.
Apart from those trapped in the insanity of addiction, almost all crime is a result of a breakdown of moral virtues as the norm. And that has nothing to do with poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or even a lack of awareness of opportunities.

I will give you a lack of value for life and a lack of respect for the right to one's own person and property as part of that equation.

how do you explain the economic demography of criminals, then? the old 'idle mind s a devil's playground' factor targets the unemployed, less educated, poorer and persons less aware of opportunities availed to them disproportionately to those who have gainful employment and better education. like i had originally posed. value of life and a broader set of morality which extends from that must certainly play in to the decisions to commit crimes. i cant believe i didnt mention discipline and patience, originally. these two play, perhaps, the biggest role.

gainfully occupied, law-abiding persons aren't afforded that merely by virtue of their moral high ground, instead that they are part of rather than at the frayed edges of the fabric of our society makes us more likely complicit with what makes our lives work positively for us.

bend your theory to application. moral education is really all that's missing?

Nonsense. In very poor cultures where people look after each other and don't depend on others to provide for them, the crime rate is no more than in the populatin at large and in some cases is much lower. I am thinking about neighborhoods and hamlets in Appalachia, for instance, or in the most rural areas of northeastern New Mexico where the median income is a fraction of that for the state or the nation. I honestly think you could thumbtack a $5 bill to a tree in front of your house there, and the person it was left for would be the one who would get it.

In inner city Los Angeles or inner city New York in the 20s, 30s, 40s there was much more poverty but much less crime.

If you look at the demographics of the most violent pockets of violence that exist in the country, you will almost 100% find areas in which the government has been the most involved in 'helping' people or where the government has been the most lax in enforcing the laws such as overlooking large numbers of people in the country illegally.

Those areas in which the nuclear family is still valued and promoted as 'normal', where people of faith share a culture in which that faith is important, and where traditional values are respected are almost always going to provide a safer and more aesthetically pleasant environment than when that is not the norm.

That, along with appropriate law enforcement applied without prejudice and without favoritism is our best bet to bring the crime rate and especailly violent crimes way down in the this country. A temporary fix of increased police presence I don't believe will get it done in the long term.

 

[blu]

where did the 1/4th come from? alcohol is more destructive than all drugs combined. we already foot rehab bills, but at least we wouldn't be paying to jail people who got caught with $10 worth of a drug. violence also would go down as people wouldn't be killed while attempting to buy $20 worth of a product.

hyperbole and wishful thinking comprise, what, 80 - 90% of your position?

nothing in that post is hyperbole or wishful thinking

 

[antagon]

A disregard for the value and sanctity of life precipitates criminality, and that is a cultural thing, not an economic thing. Yes, perhaps someone will steal to keep their children from starving, but that isn't an issue in this country. Nobody has to steal in order to eat here.
Apart from those trapped in the insanity of addiction, almost all crime is a result of a breakdown of moral virtues as the norm. And that has nothing to do with poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or even a lack of awareness of opportunities.

I will give you a lack of value for life and a lack of respect for the right to one's own person and property as part of that equation.

how do you explain the economic demography of criminals, then? the old 'idle mind s a devil's playground' factor targets the unemployed, less educated, poorer and persons less aware of opportunities availed to them disproportionately to those who have gainful employment and better education. like i had originally posed. value of life and a broader set of morality which extends from that must certainly play in to the decisions to commit crimes. i cant believe i didnt mention discipline and patience, originally. these two play, perhaps, the biggest role.

gainfully occupied, law-abiding persons aren't afforded that merely by virtue of their moral high ground, instead that they are part of rather than at the frayed edges of the fabric of our society makes us more likely complicit with what makes our lives work positively for us.

bend your theory to application. moral education is really all that's missing?

Nonsense. In very poor cultures where people look after each other and don't depend on others to provide for them, the crime rate is no more than in the populatin at large and in some cases is much lower. I am thinking about neighborhoods and hamlets in Appalachia, for instance, or in the most rural areas of northeastern New Mexico where the median income is a fraction of that for the state or the nation. I honestly think you could thumbtack a $5 bill to a tree in front of your house there, and the person it was left for would be the one who would get it.

In inner city Los Angeles or inner city New York in the 20s, 30s, 40s there was much more poverty but much less crime.

If you look at the demographics of the most violent pockets of violence that exist in the country, you will almost 100% find areas in which the government has been the most involved in 'helping' people or where the government has been the most lax in enforcing the laws such as overlooking large numbers of people in the country illegally.

Those areas in which the nuclear family is still valued and promoted as 'normal', where people of faith share a culture in which that faith is important, and where traditional values are respected are almost always going to provide a safer and more aesthetically pleasant environment than when that is not the norm.

That, along with appropriate law enforcement applied without prejudice and without favoritism is our best bet to bring the crime rate and especailly violent crimes way down in the this country. A temporary fix of increased police presence I don't believe will get it done in the long term.

looking at my original disposition, there isnt such a hyperfocus on financial poverty. instead, i feel the impetus of crime is a lack of legal alternatives amid a host of criminal options. none of your counter-examples account for such an environment as exists in modern cities. not one. there's church services in appalachia, not $1,000,000,000 drug cartels. that you've likely not considered the essential fact we've got to get urban development right going into the future, not the rural circumstances of 150 years back, imperils your solution's fit with the task.

im not sure where you're going with prejudice/favoritism in law enforcement. what i've seen as effective in modern inner-city los angeles is targeted prejudice against the gang culture's right to assemble and freedom of expression through their outfits and rhetoric. aggressive expansion of the prison system and laws/enforcement practices which effectively diffuse criminal populations out of the urban center to areas of lower density. further encouraging gentrification in the inner city through inflation in property values through enforcement and public investment, re-zoning and a host of other means makes it stick. that worked wonders for LA, and i would say NY city, too.

ultimately, ive seen such policies ruin some people's lives, innocents and thugs, and for the benefit of some other, preferred, folks. ive seen them ruin some less essential suburbs and neighboring states for the benefit of city of los angeles. in these 'burbs and lower-density states, the idea is that the impact of diffuse criminal activity is mild relative to the surges which NYC and LA had in the 90s, however, witness camden, nj now.

to hell with appalachia and a fiver on a tree with some 2-3 people per square mile. you put americans on top of eachother miles from a job, and then and close the schools down, it gets real clear that moral ed. and values talk is a stand-up routine. it is a joke to propose that in light of what is really happening in modern, depressed urban scenarios where a failure to affect a lawful economy has lent to a robust criminal economy.

 

[antagon]

where did the 1/4th come from? alcohol is more destructive than all drugs combined. we already foot rehab bills, but at least we wouldn't be paying to jail people who got caught with $10 worth of a drug. violence also would go down as people wouldn't be killed while attempting to buy $20 worth of a product.

hyperbole and wishful thinking comprise, what, 80 - 90% of your position?

nothing in that post is hyperbole or wishful thinking

yes, blu, outside of libertarian statistic land, nobody goes to jail for a dime-bag, and killings of your 'innocent' drug-punter pale to the killings in the grander scheme of the industry. in the real world said killings are taken into account when determining the destructiveness of other drugs when compared to alcohol. 95%