Why is being safe a crime?

Post Reply New Topic

That sucks. I can't imagine my own friend doing that to me. I know anyone can steal, your own children, your room mates, your parents, relatives, someone you trust, anyone you know. I would get an alarm for that.

I disagree. NYC is 10 times tougher on criminals, especially on minor infractions, than they were 20, 30 years ago. The entire principle behind Giuliani's crime policy in the 90s was to jail people for minor infractions like subway turnstile jumping in order to project the image that the more major crimes are just unthinkable. *That* seems to have worked. Incidentally they also made Central Booking even more painful than it already was, and they keep people there longer now (no more night court), which means even if you aren't even charged the New York arrest experience is something nobody ever wants to go through, ever. I think that particular nugget is probably unconstitutional.

I agree that rehabilitation > incarceration, but I think having a hell of a deterrent is necessary to complete the picture.

I also think the justice system needs to be hyperfunded so people go from arrest to conviction and sentencing (or as the case may be acquittal) in just a few days.

Also, from my experience going through the NYC criminal justice system (twice), I only ran into a couple of fellow detainees ever who I didn't like/felt unsafe around. For the most part they were nice guys and I spent a lot of time advising them on legal issues to the extent I'm able (much of my advice was "screw the cost, get a f*****g private attorney", the second time I was in Central Booking with like 100 other people and I think everyone ended up with a public defender at their arraignment except for like 3 people including me, the first time they released me without even an arraignment). All these guys were missing was discipline (and a lot of them weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer but that's ok).

The second time I went through the system, the DA played hardball right up to the end. They had no case against me, but 95% of criminal cases never go to trial, they end in plea deals. If they have no case they offer a really easy plea deal called ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal), if you have no additional convictions for 6 months or 12 months it's "erased" from your record, some agencies like CBP can still see it and what the disposition was. I didn't feel like having a charge on my record for a year or having the disposition appear as "ACD" to CBP or whoever handles any future gun permits I apply for, so I told them (through my attorney) fine, let's go to trial. I don't think they even believed it until the end, I was facing a year in jail. They finally dismissed.

This is BS. Everything should go to trial. If I were guilty, I should have gotten the year in jail. If I wasn't I should have got acquittal. ACD should have never entered the picture. Now, like I said, 95% of everyone gets a plea deal instead of a trial. Do you see what the problem is?

Okay well you live there, I'm just relaying articles an web pages about how 'New York won the war on crime' and the like. 80% drops in all serious crimes sounds impressive if it's true and even if you're right about the punitive punishments that might just mean they're still softer relative to the rest of America which apparently has incarceration increasing even as they become more punitive.



They could probably fund that if they scaled back the War on Drugs.



Locking people up in America is big business?

That has far less to do with it than "the will of the people" does, or the fact that if everything went to trial the court system would implode and cease to function because they couldn't handle even 5-10% of the caseload. With plea bargains, everyone gets the same deal whether they're guilty or innocent, and the penalty is always lukewarm, except the mark on your record that screws up your employment prospects. I think whether a person is guilty or innocent should be the penultimate determiner of what the disposition of their case is, or else we don't have a justice system.

I don't think less than a 99% drop from early 80s crime levels is acceptable. Also, most of the country has experienced over a 50% drop. I think NY has fewer social issues than other jursidictions, they are quicker to put people in the hospital if they exhibit obvious mental issues (though not quick enough), and the city population has become SIGNIFICANTLY more gentrified, especially in Manhattan which has experienced the most serious reduction.

Also, the annual budget of the City of New York is $60 *billion*, which is larger than the annual budget of all but a few states. That doesn't even take into account the State of New York budget. They have the money to deal with their problems here.

Yeah that's where they get people in the revolving door thing, with labelling. A Florida study followed about 96,000 people on probation. Those that were labelled 'felon' went back to jail more than those who weren't because of housing and employment problems. Whites went back at a rate more than non whites and women went back at a rate more than men! Social engineering with a little 5 letter word can reverse the usual cultural stereotypes! That's pretty crazy. And some people doubt the power that labels like 'sl*t' or 'ni***r' or even just 'stupid' can have on people.

In that book 'The City That Became Safe' it said the 2010 homicide rate was lower than the 1950's average. Do you know if there was some particular calamity happening back then? Some sort of underworld war or something? It sounds counter intuitive on the face of it but maybe people just think NYC is worse than it really is now and you'd know better as you live there. I know in the west (as an average) all major crimes have been decreasing since the 1970's but elderly people interviewed feel less safe now and people generally think society is more dangerous than it is statistically. I guess it's a human urge to not to be that statistic on the news that they focus on for ratings.

There are valid reasons why employers choose not to hire previously convicted people, although I would hope that (and I believe most do) consider what the conviction was for and what it *really* says about the candidate. But people that have been convicted of, say, armed robbery, are now going to be doing armed robbery for life because nobody is going to hire someone with that on their record. Everyone knows that. Not only is the person dangerous but they're probably also not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Not providing measures to counteract this is downright insane on the part of the state. But so is letting dangerously mentally unstable people walk the street without being hospitalized, which FL also rules at.

The 70s were just downright insane. Everything was screwed up and nobody seemed to care. Half the kids were selling hard drugs in school. That stuff was unheard of before the end of the 60s and you are correct that the crime rate in NY has now fallen below the levels that were first seen in the 60s. No doubt that's a good thing. Canadian and western/northern European cities still have a far lower crime rate and I think that is what should be striven for. Violent crime should be virtually unheard of. As long as you're not inconveniencing people who are just trying to go about their day - solutions that do that are bad solutions. For example I have a serious problem with DUI checkpoints and in fact I refuse to speak to police manning them. If they're going to tackle the DUI problem they should tackle the god damn DUI problem and leave my sober ass out of it. I do not want to interact with a cop, a security agent, or anyone unless I am committing an actual crime or am a victim of one. There are ways. I do think NY has in part achieved its low crime rate through questionable measures that aren't really necessary.

There isn't anything at all wrong with that. I think you are very smart to be on top of things like that. Where I live, we don't have to be so people would likely think you were paranoid if you did something like that here, but when we first moved to this town people thought I was crazy for always locking my house and car and never leaving anything valuable out at night, and always holding my purse when I was in the grocery store instead of leaving it in the little baby seat.

I think people who may laugh at you or think you are paranoid for taking precautions like that probably come from some place where they don't have to do that, and don't understand why anyone would. If you ever came to my town for a visit, I would let you know that you didn't have to do that here, but I wouldn't think it was paranoid or overreacting if you did that anyway. It's hard to shift gears from one place to another, especially if you grew up with those habits.

I say it's your stuff and you have every right to keep it safe however you see fit, and it's none of anybody else's business. Ignore the people who say something bad to you about that. You are the smart one and one day they will wish they had done what you do when their stuff gets stolen.

One time at Babycenter, someone posted about driving about an hour to meet someone from Craigslist and they agreed to meeting up and buying the breast pump from her. But when she got there, the person no longer had the item and had sold it to someone else. The person was pissed because she drove all that way for nothing. I said "that is why I never drive far for things on Craigslist." Someone read that and interpreted that as "I told you so." Stupid people.

Legalising abortion is what worked. The drop in crime didn't coincide with Giuliani, it coincided with the first generation of teenagers who were missing foetuses who had been aborted. Those are also the ones most likely to go on to commit crimes. This pattern was repeated across America.

Legalising abortion is what worked. The drop in crime didn't coincide with Giuliani, it coincided with the first generation of teenagers who were missing foetuses who had been aborted. Those are also the ones most likely to go on to commit crimes. This pattern was repeated across America.[/quote

Wrong decade, but nice try.

Actually I doubt it's ever been difficult to get an abortion in NY.

We had a safety meeting yesterday. The person who was doing the meeting told us we are all responsible for our belongings. Do not leave it at work because it is not our building we work in. They are not responsible for our stuff missing if someone takes it. I then thought of "blaming the victim" and knew some people would pull that card on him but luckily no one pulled it at work. But I have seen it a lot online over the past year. So I knew they would pull it for that situation.

I am thinking people look at telling people to take precaution or be safe differently than I do. They see it as blaming the victim, I see it as them telling us to not do this or that for our own safety of our things. I cannot relate to people who look at it differently than I do. All I am seeing is, it's a crime to be safe.

Say what?

They're saying "take reasonable measures to prevent your stuff from being taken."

That's being responsible, not blaming the victim. It's responsible to not leave valuables unattended, etc.

"Blaming the victim" is saying that someone brought something on themselves, such as wearing low-cut shirts then got....

Being irresponsible is leaving your valuables unattended in public and expecting nothing to happen to them. Being irresponsible is not wearing a seatbelt, smoking, and doing other "risky" things.