Lynne Abraham to Michael Nutter: Gun Laws Unconstitutional, Will Not Enforce

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

How about not giving, but rather letting the people keep their own money rather than taxing them into the ground. Let those who have the will and drive to succeed and those who choose not to can live in poverty, its NOT our problem. I don't care what country they live in, their choices are not my problem. Lets have a constitutionally limited republic as our founders and founding documents intended. Secure OUR borders, protect OUR freedom(s), and lets shrink the size of our government to what it should be, the way it was designed to be.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

At any rate, whether we spend my tax dollars on killing strangers in Iraq, or feeding/housing/educating strangers in Philadelphia, I'm benefited directly about the same. Actually, killing people who want me dead has the advantage over subsidizing the next generation of domestic thugs.

While I agree that money needs to be spent to defend our liberty, you and I likely disagree on how much and on what (or maybe not -- in war the victor reaps the spoils -- why Afganistan remains on the map and why Iraq still has a drop of its own oil escapes me but whatever).

That aside, it seems to me you continue to deliberately ignore the distinction between subsidizing the next generation of thugs, and paying the cost to catch, prosecute and lock them up as a way to change the landscape. You'd likely be surprised at how little is really spent (in relative terms) on welfare programs. The big bucks are cops and prisons and to a lesser degree the DA's office. As in most things, 90% of the problems are caused by 10% (not real numbers but you get my meaning). If we locked up that 10% for a good while, the problems would be reduced greatly (at least for as long as they were locked up, and then if they still don't behave, another 20 yrs. will do the trick on their next turn).

Do you have a problem with helping to pay what it costs to control crime in philly (and I mean the old fashioned way -- lock 'em up -- prisoners don't commit street crimes; they're too busy being their cellmate's bitch ) or do you really, totally just not give a crap? We've already been over some of the reasons why philly doesn't have what it costs (lots of criminals, not lots of middle class or upper class taxpayers -- that's the reality). Philly is still part of the Commonwealth. You can't just sweep all social ills under a rug where ever it is you might live.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHands

How about not giving, but rather letting the people keep their own money rather than taxing them into the ground. Let those who have the will and drive to succeed and those who choose not to can live in poverty, its NOT our problem. I don't care what country they live in, their choices are not my problem. Lets have a constitutionally limited republic as our founders and founding documents intended. Secure OUR borders, protect OUR freedom(s), and lets shrink the size of our government to what it should be, the way it was designed to be.

Check the budget. The poor aren't the ones getting much of your dollars.

That aside, I'd also like to see the federal gov't shrink significantly.

Reagan had the right idea. Gov't is the problem.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

.....That aside, it seems to me you continue to deliberately ignore the distinction between subsidizing the next generation of thugs, and paying the cost to catch, prosecute and lock them up as a way to change the landscape. You'd likely be surprised at how little is really spent (in relative terms) on welfare programs. The big bucks are cops and prisons and to a lesser degree the DA's office. As in most things, 90% of the problems are caused by 10% (not real numbers but you get my meaning). If we locked up that 10% for a good while, the problems would be reduced greatly (at least for as long as they were locked up, and then if they still don't behave, another 20 yrs. will do the trick on their next turn).

Do you have a problem with helping to pay what it costs to control crime in philly (and I mean the old fashioned way -- lock 'em up -- prisoners don't commit street crimes; they're too busy being their cellmate's bitch ) or do you really, totally just not give a crap? We've already been over some of the reasons why philly doesn't have what it costs (lots of criminals, not lots of middle class or upper class taxpayers -- that's the reality). Philly is still part of the Commonwealth. You can't just sweep all social ills under a rug where ever it is you might live.

It would require a massive change in the criminal justice system to have a real effect. They'd have to stop coddling the young offenders, and do what it takes to actually change behavior, even if that means locking up a 12-year old murderer for 30 years, and tossing 10 year old drug mules in jail instead of returning them to the "supervision" of their parent. The catch and release system just plain doesn't work. Worse, by having several family members around who have committed crimes, done time, and are now back and accepted by the family, kids are clearly taught that a criminal career is survivable and acceptable, just like getting pregnant at 13.

If there was a comprehensive plan to stop Philly crime, one that would work, I'd have no objection to state money being contributed. But just handing cash over to the corrupt hacks who run the city today? No, that's just pissing money away. The city council and the mayor have made it clear that the rule of law is not important to them, that logic and facts give way to political posturing. That crap about wanting a chance to "persuade" Abraham that the laws are "defensible" is just a symptom of the crooked back-room dealings that are the norm in the city. I fully expect that the FBI will eventually have to come in again and uncover the latest batch of graft and payoffs and insider deals by Nutter and his cronies.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

It would require a massive change in the criminal justice system to have a real effect. They'd have to stop coddling the young offenders, and do what it takes to actually change behavior, even if that means locking up a 12-year old murderer for 30 years, and tossing 10 year old drug mules in jail instead of returning them to the "supervision" of their parent. The catch and release system just plain doesn't work. Worse, by having several family members around who have committed crimes, done time, and are now back and accepted by the family, kids are clearly taught that a criminal career is survivable and acceptable, just like getting pregnant at 13.

If there was a comprehensive plan to stop Philly crime, one that would work, I'd have no objection to state money being contributed. But just handing cash over to the corrupt hacks who run the city today? No, that's just pissing money away. The city council and the mayor have made it clear that the rule of law is not important to them, that logic and facts give way to political posturing. That crap about wanting a chance to "persuade" Abraham that the laws are "defensible" is just a symptom of the crooked back-room dealings that are the norm in the city. I fully expect that the FBI will eventually have to come in again and uncover the latest batch of graft and payoffs and insider deals by Nutter and his cronies.

I agree with not returning children to a bad environment but its the same with Glen Mills they get everything they want including collage scholarship and once there out they attend collage on average of six months and then return to the gangs.

If the FBI comes in and find grafts and payoffs I don't want to see the corrupt politicians go to the county club prisons but to do hard time and maybe it will send a message to other politicians not to play that game.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

...and tossing 10 year old drug mules in jail instead of returning them to the "supervision" of their parent.

Forgive me if I'm out of line here, I don't know what area of law you practice, but I can say that from personal experience, not one 10-year old that went into the system for minor drug offenses has come out "rehabilitated" if they didn't have a decent home and family behind them. When you're not getting support and validation from your family while in prison or "juvy", you start seeking it anywhere you can find it. When incarcerated, that takes on the form of getting it from criminals, and the necessities of survival dictate that when in a cage with predators, one must become or mimic a predator to keep the big pointy teeth around you at bay. I'm all for punishing juvenile offenders, but that alone won't solve the issue. I'd rather send them off to military school or some other non-violent, low-weight offender home/program for juveniles. Putting them in the system with nothing supporting them from the outside just breeds another career criminal in most cases.

I spent some time in "juvy", I had a good family behind me when I made my mistakes in my younger years, and I came out never wanting to put them through that again. Others that I met while in the programs, they had nothing on the outside, they just got worse. A lot of kids went from mommy's drug mule to big time dealers based on the connections they got hooked up with inside...no one on the outside really gave a shit about them.

I don't mean to cry for the little criminals, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. The whole system needs something of an overhaul...

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

......Putting them in the system with nothing supporting them from the outside just breeds another career criminal in most cases.

..........

I don't mean to cry for the little criminals, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. The whole system needs something of an overhaul...

I don't know that we disagree, my point is that the system needs a plan that is likely to work, not just a more expensive version of a system that doesn't work. if the government can't rehabilitate, then I expect it to keep the predators away from the rest of us as we go to work and trim our lawns and pay our taxes and apply for building permits so that we can fix our own property. If we have to toe the line, the government can at least keep the scumbags off our backs.

Whether that takes a "Clockwork Orange" sort of classical conditioning, with the nausea drugs and propped-open eyelids and forced visceral associations, or whether they just lock the thugs away in solitary until they go mad, I'm no expert penologist, I don't know. But releasing bad people back onto the street is a failure of government.

The solution to prisons as training schools for crime is to isolate the criminals from each other. The solution to unrepentant thugs being released back onto the streets is to decline to release them. A 3-strikes law based on any 3 imprisonable offenses would be a good start, because anyone convicted of 3 separate imprisonable offenses, even non-violent offenses, has shown an inability to obey the law.

There was a case out of California, I think, where some punk had 2 strikes and he was then convicted of strong-arming a little boy out of a slice of pizza, just grabbed it and shoved the kid away. The liberals wept over this guy going away for life, just for stealing a slice of pizza. I'm OK with that. He went through the system twice, and it STILL was not safe to have something that he wanted to steal. Society is better off with him gone, whether it's jail or a cemetery or Australia.

We need zero tolerance for crime in Philadelphia (and elsewhere). Get car insurance, pay your taxes, don't steal, don't sell drugs, get a job, and the government will earn its keep by keeping the vultures off your back.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

The solution to unrepentant thugs being released back onto the streets is to decline to release them.

I think you're starting to get it.

We need more places to put them all. The "war on drugs" has the beds full and there's no room left at the inn for a lot of violent animals who haven't (yet) murdered or raped anyone but have done plenty of other bad things.

Prisons cost money. You don't have to hand it over to the poor or to a corrupt city administration. Just build the prisons.

Same with cops. Hire more cops. The city administration can't screw up a gift from H'Burg of more cops. Likewise the DA is overburdened. Many relatively junior ADAs handle the equivalent of one armed robbery case every single day. How much prep would you do on an armed robbery case? For the side of the good guys, it's here's the file and off you go.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I don't mean to cry for the little criminals, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. The whole system needs something of an overhaul...

The unfortunate truth is that there are so many juvenile offenders in philly, and so little that can really be done with most of them, the problem overwhelms available resources and any possible chance of rehabilitating them. If their existing support systems kick in and some straighten out, that's a victory. For most, the sad truth for most is that the longer they can be seggregated from society, the better.

I'm starting to wonder if we don't need to just cycle through a complete generation. Those who can demonstrate rehabilitation are returned to society. Those who can't remain away from it. As long as it takes, even if it takes a long time.

What I think doesn't matter much as there's no way it would happen. We don't have the resources and we don't have the political will to even consider long term incarceration as a means to get to a different place over the long haul.

The few certainties and guarantees are that people in prison don't commit street crimes and don't reproduce another generation of problems. Everything else is up in the air.

[NineseveN]

Gunlawyer001 and Philadelphia, thank you both for the excellent discussion. I think we're all mostly on the same page now, just coming from different angles. Not bad for a day's posting.

Peace.