Submitted by hau5keeping t3_yong64 in nyc
Comments
survive_los_angeles t1_ivfa6be wrote
> “I lost my memory completely. I don’t remember anything. I leave you free,” Guallpa wrote
that intensely sad, but also that thru his injury he felt he had to go for his family before he hurt them more
sokpuppet1 t1_ivfpc91 wrote
An indictment of both our prison system and our healthcare system.
"Her husband was taken to jail and received a bail he couldn’t afford. Less than two weeks later, he took his own life.
'I thought that maybe going to jail, he was going to go to some classes, some things for him to reflect on, and it wasn’t like that,' Guamán said. 'What happened was that he died.'"
Dr_Pepper_spray t1_ivgdh9v wrote
What strikes me about all this is the thought that jail and prison aren't the same thing. You can be arrested for a crime, let's say rape, that you didn't commit, and you may not get a trial for months if not years. They'll shove you in Rikers where you'll have to survive amongst gangs and bullies, you'll have to get money for commissary that other inmates will try to bargin or steal from you and meanwhile you won't be working and all your shit on the outside will fall apart because you got accused of a crime you didn't commit.
Under a cash-bail system those who had means to pay the bail got out to at least cover their lives, while those too poor just stayed inside that dungeon and fell apart.
It's no fucking wonder.
sokpuppet1 t1_ivh0dla wrote
80% of people confined to Rikers have not been convicted of a crime, which is absolutely nuts when you realize some of them are there for years.
This case in particular I'll never understand how it can happen in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
Neckwrecker t1_ivhd9o6 wrote
>"Her husband was taken to jail and received a bail he couldn’t afford. Less than two weeks later, he took his own life.
How is that possible? I have it on good authority from several fucking idiots that every criminal in NYC is given Mets tickets, a Dunkin gift card and then set free.
[deleted] t1_ivj90gj wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivf44bv wrote
It's a really tragic story on how Guallpa became a first-time violent offender himself (from the article):
>Luz Guamán, Guallpa’s wife, recalled him as a good father, often helping with housework and taking care of the kids. But the former construction worker, who lost his job after an onsite accident, fell into a dark depression after he was robbed outside his home in an assault in which he was hit in the head repeatedly.
>
>After that, Guallpa began drinking more and attacking his wife, who supported their family through her income from a clothing factory.
Considering that robberies are rising by more than 30% in NYC this year, and felony assaults are on pace to hit the record high for this century in NYC (https://imgur.com/a/uYPZgDY), how many more victims like Guallpa do we need before our fake-progressives start taking the issue seriously? Crimes are destroying families.
Edit: if you're outraged with the above paragraph by wrongly equating "taking the issue seriously" with "tough-on-crime far-right policy", you should check yourself for your own biases. While you might have an opposite moral compass, that suggests you have the same narrow-mindedness/lack of imagination as the far-right people you might despise.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivfb42t wrote
Imagine clicking on a post about a person who committed suicide after spending two weeks in Rikers because he couldn't afford bail and concluding that getting tougher on crime is the answer.
princessnegrita t1_ivfd01l wrote
They were all over the last article about a person dying at Rikers insinuating (based on nothing but their own biases) that the person was killed by another inmate.
All of these people think that sprinkling in some vaguely liberal-sounding buzzwords is enough to conceal the fascism inherent in their beliefs.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivfe9xb wrote
My favorite part is when they pretend YOU'RE the one politicizing some poor guy offing himself with a sock because death was preferable to Rikers.
princessnegrita t1_ivfgot4 wrote
Oh don’t even get me started on when they try to bring up POC and the issues we face as if it supports their beliefs.
So many white redditors cosplaying care about poc in an attempt to shut down conversations about justice. They’re doing it in this thread right now.
cC2Panda t1_ivfkuu3 wrote
I've said this a dozen times before on this sub, but we need to better fund out court system to actually make it "fair and speedy". We spend more than $1,500 per day for someone to be in Rikers. Even if you are someone who believes in small government the financially intelligent thing to do is better fund our courts so that people get to trial in a timeframe that doesn't ruin their life. The societal, economic, and human cost of putting the average person awaiting trial in prison for 4 months is disastrous.
libananahammock t1_ivgeyao wrote
Bingo!
Grass8989 t1_ivgzp7y wrote
And what happens if/most likely when they’re found inevitably guilty. Are we then okay with the prison sentence? Or do we just want to get rid of jails all together? The majority of people on rikers have violent priors, that’s the reality of the situation.
mission17 t1_ivhaex6 wrote
Riker’s comes before the trial and before any guilty verdict. Riker’s is not a prison.
cC2Panda t1_ivh61x6 wrote
The entire system needs massive reform. We need a system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punitive actions.
Our current system does not provide fair and speedy trial as dictated by the sixth amendment.
Our prisons create worse people and have some of the highest recidivism in the developed world, so clearly it's not working.
44% go back to prison in the first year of release. And then we just blow even more money. The financially smart thing is to try to reduce recidivism by actually helping the prisoners. Less wasted taxes and less victims.
Grass8989 t1_ivg23py wrote
I mean does anyone think strangulation should be a bailable offense? If anything it shows how we should be harder on violent assaults and have them be a no bail offense across the board, not that there should be no pretrial incarceration which is what many people are implying.
SharkSpider t1_ivfbylf wrote
Should he have been let out to go back home and beat his wife some more? After the initial assault (which absolutely could have been prevented by being tougher on crime) this was a no-win situation.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivfct11 wrote
I don't understand. Did you think my criticism of /u/NetQuarterLatte's comment came coupled with policy suggestions that would have prevented this outcome?
utamog t1_ivfgg08 wrote
Isn’t this article saying that an assault robbery was what snapped him in the first place? Definitely reinforced my viewpoint that we need to crack down on crime harder.
You are advocating to let him out on bail so he can harm his wife more? Where is the sense or empathy in that?
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfc9qv wrote
>concluding that getting tougher on crime is the answer.
That interpretation is on you and your own biases. Don't project your own biases on me.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivfckkw wrote
Your mealy-mouthed response is pretentious, cowardly, and fools nobody.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivgxnuv wrote
>Your mealy-mouthed response is pretentious, cowardly, and fools nobody.
Anyone who reads my original comment with honestly can see I did not conclude for "tough-on-crime". That interpretation came from your own bias.
You could've asked in good faith and I would've answered.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivgy8mh wrote
>Anyone who reads my original comment with honestly can see I did not conclude for "tough-on-crime". That interpretation came from your own bias.
And anyone can see where the downvotes landed to determine what readers thought.
I would've asked in good-faith if I thought you were a good-faith actor.
ThisIsMyFifthAccount t1_ivgm0cv wrote
What’s your next favorite hobby after posting on an anonymous NYC forum about crime? Do you even live in NYC, or NYS for that matter?
Talk about a wasted fearful life, you must be stressed and lonely.
mule_roany_mare t1_ivfa3m7 wrote
People love to talk about how men are violent or maladjusted, but no one cares to think of how they got that way.
We talk so almost exclusively about how vulnerable & threatened women feel that most people don't even know that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime & more likely to be injured during it as well.
If more people gave a fuck some guys like Mr. Segundo Guallpa would have better outcomes.
fleetwoodmacbookair t1_ivfmqxb wrote
What policies do you support? I absolutely believe that violent crime should be prevented, but it’s clear that the current approaches are subpar. This story is devastating, it illustrates a cycle of violence that ends with people who have been labeled as criminals at the mercy of a system that does not seem to care if they live or die.
I am a progressive, I have also been the victim of a violent, random attempted robbery. I certainly understand that crime exists and shouldn’t be ignored. I also don’t think that more police or more prisons are the answer, but they seem to be the only options that most political leaders turn to, both democrats and republicans alike.
I find it disconcerting that progressives are being framed as completely ignoring the actual impact of violent crime. This rhetoric allows right wing “tough on crime” policies to gain traction far more quickly. You see it every time you turn on the tv and see a Zeldin for Governor ad.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfq98g wrote
>What policies do you support?
I support the obvious: economic improvements, better wages, better life-quality, better education, access to health-care, mental health care, etc. All of which already receive plenty of attention (even if they don't receive effective implementation, like De Blasio's failed mental health care plan..)
What I don't support: advocating for above shouldn't devolve into a "crime denial" bliss where we just blame the media and "far-right people", and then pretend that there's no issue.
I also oppose the nihilist view that we can't do anything about crime ("we are just at the mercy of a nationwide trend", "it's a pandemic we have no control of", ...). The nihilist view is not supported by evidence.
What do I think has been missing from the debate?
An honest conversation about the role of policing, and how America is severely under-policed compared to other developed countries, and how that's actually one of the root causes of mass incarceration (longer and more severe sentences as a way to compensate for under-policing)
Understaffed police departments also tend to employ more violence.
We can look at other developed cities, like London where the police doesn't even carry guns (except for very specialized units), but when they intervene to arrest someone they usually swam the individual with lots of bodies.
Right now, this is what I like to see more in the conversations:
- Deterrence (likelihood of being caught is more important than the severity of the punishment)
- Messaging about crime enforcement is more important than punishments.
- Poverty drives property-crimes but not violent crimes
- Lack of trust in the police as a root-cause for violent crimes. To address that we need to make sure police misconduct is addressed seriously, but also to not exaggerate that or devolve that into openly spreading of "anti-police" campaigns (which can foster distrust in the police locally, even if the PD who committed the wrongdoing is a completely different PD from another state)
- Violence spreads like a contagious diseases. Stopping the spread requires a two-pronged approach: prevention (better economics/social) that makes communities less vulnerable), and targeted isolation/intervention (don't let a few people keep spreading it!)
Obs.: I refer to some people as "progressive" between quotes, because the totalitarian discourse/logic they employ and the actual policies they impose are anything but progressive.
VaccumSaturdays t1_ivfwvpq wrote
That article you’d posted is gross. Here’s a realistic, eloquent, smart response to it.
Your political bias is showing. And it’s scary. No matter how many awards your posts are showered with. We also know where those originate, by the way.
HEIMDVLLR t1_ivg1vr7 wrote
> Your political bias is showing. And it’s scary. No matter how many awards your posts are showered with. We also know where those originate, by the way.
FACTS!
This the same clown that made post about removing Alvin Braggs by any means. Ignoring the fact that Braggs was elected by the communities that watch friends and family members suffer on Rikers Island because they can’t post bail.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivg78zm wrote
>This the same clown that made post about removing Alvin Braggs by any means.
Any attorney in NY can be fired for any reason, at any time. Firing the DA should be no different than firing any other attorney in NY, considering that the district is the client here.
District voters should have the right to express their will to fire the DA.
The lack of such right is causing a distortion in our elections. If Manhattan had the right to vote for that, it would be a heck lot easier for people to vote for Hochul.
HEIMDVLLR t1_ivg9t2z wrote
Remind me why Manhattan residents that don’t like Alvin Braggs, didn’t vote against him?
princessnegrita t1_ivhbcom wrote
Thanks for linking this!
I also looked into the article and I saw an old professor of mine (who literally wrote one of the most cited recent books on criminal justice AND has extensive experience working with people in Rikers) called their ideas nonsense and a waste of resources.
VaccumSaturdays t1_ivhoe20 wrote
Absolutely my pleasure. It’s wild this article came from the minds of Harvard folks, and was actually published
princessnegrita t1_ivkjmq5 wrote
I’m gonna get a bit nerdy because social science is my field (which feels really weird to say). There’s been a focus on quantitative statistical methods in social science to “legitimize” the research and it’s been a disservice.
Basically, social science journals prioritize publishing this kind of research, so schools prioritize teaching these particular research methods. It becomes less about actually trying to explain the world around us as a complex interconnected beast than about isolating one particular issue, disregarding the complexities (because that’s too difficult to calculate) and trying to use stats to make an argument.
In the article linked, the professors do exactly that and simply dismiss the complexities of policing in the US because it fucks up their models and their arguments.
VaccumSaturdays t1_ivl62qb wrote
Holy shit, you’re smart.
Thank you.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivg5sz6 wrote
I saw the twitter threat. There's a lot of fear-mongering in his retorts filled with "anti-cop" political agenda.
Filtering out the fear-mongering/political stuff, the main logical gap in the counter-argument from Alec Karakatsanis is that he's trying to count any law-enforcement as "police". We all know that the typical border patrol officer is not investigating murder cases in our communities, for example.
The second gap: he points out the undercounting of "private police" as problem in the study. It's actually the other way around: the emergence of "private police" only bolsters the study argument that many locations in the US are severely under-policed.
VaccumSaturdays t1_ivg84yb wrote
I think the fear mongering is the entire length of your post and comment history.
Thank you, good night.
Rottimer t1_ivhc5zy wrote
>The professor then admitted privately over email that the U.S. census count is actually 1,227,788 police. That’s 76% higher than the number they chose to use in their public article. What’s the significance of this? Using this number, they admitted to me, would mean the U.S. truthfully has “1.1 times the median rate in rich countries.”
I mean, that's fairly devastating to your argument if you're using that as a source. And while you poo poo counting border patrol, or the FBI as law enforcement, the authors in the article you linked don't make that distinction for other countries either.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivhpdo3 wrote
>The professor then admitted privately over email that the U.S. census count is actually 1,227,788 police.
It took me 5 minutes to figure out that the 1.2M figure includes police and correctional officers.
The BLS currently indicates:
- 808,200 Police and Detectives [1]
- 419,000 Correctional Officers and Bailiffs [2]
Which adds to 1,227,200. That's obviously counting the head-count of policing and incarceration personnel, which is exactly what the cited article is aiming to separate.
Alec Karakatsanis is just being sloppy and hasty in trying to push his political agenda, and making himself look intellectually dishonest in the process.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detectives.htm
[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correctional-officers.htm
[deleted] t1_ivihnsr wrote
[removed]
fleetwoodmacbookair t1_ivga06w wrote
I appreciate this thoughtful response, i agree with many of the solutions you’ve outlined above. That said, policing in this country is broken right now. Any policy that includes additional funding to police forces requires major overhaul of police departments first. That said, I think that consistently arguing that our streets are too dangerous and progressives aren’t up to the task is a concerning rhetoric. Fear is a powerful tool, and this entire New York State election cycle has demonstrated exactly that.
Fwiw, the violence leads to violence argument is a reasonable one. However, I believe a lot of that violence in underserved neighborhoods begins with policing. Armed cops who see any citizen as a potential threat have an inherently violent effect.
Also, with regards to the deterrence point. I don’t really think criminals are doing illegal things because they’re like “the DA won’t prosecute he’s too weak on crime.” I’ve seen you discussing your issues with Bragg below, how does that tie into your view on this issue?
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivgemr1 wrote
>Also, with regards to the deterrence point. I don’t really think criminals are doing illegal things because they’re like “the DA won’t prosecute he’s too weak on crime.” I’ve seen you discussing your issues with Bragg below, how does that tie into your view on this issue?
Messaging/signaling is a big deal. And I suspect that's at the root of more crimes than we give it credit for.
For example, leave some property unattended, and it'll signal that no one cares about it, and it will increase the likelihood of it being stolen/defaced etc. The other way around works too: if it's credible that someone cares about it, it can be a deterrent for crimes.
One concrete example was in the use of street lighting at night: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/northeast/nyc-used-street-lighting-to-cut-crime-without-more-arrests/
>“What I take from that is that it’s not just about lighting. There is some kind of demonstration and signaling effect here that you’re letting people know this is an area that’s being watched. This is an area that’s being cared for,” he said. Additionally, they monitored communities around the public housing developments and did not find that crime was being displaced to other locations.
Another concrete example is how the increased enforcement of misdemeanors (in the 90s) led to the decrease of felonies: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9061/w9061.pdf
With Bragg specifically, both of the issues I had/have with him entails messaging:
- In his first day of office he decided to wholesale downgrade armed robberies to misdemeanors. That was quite a slap in the face given the rise in gun violence that was going on around that time.
- In the Trump's case, he didn't even try to present the case to a grand jury and had the lead prosecutors resigning in protest. That's another slap in the face given that such outcome would've only be expected from a republican DA, and that it helps perpetuate the lack of accountability of the powerful.
[deleted] t1_ivgi0cg wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivgfbho wrote
>However, I believe a lot of that violence in underserved neighborhoods begins with policing. Armed cops who see any citizen as a potential threat have an inherently violent effect.
You're right on point with that. Mistrust in the police is also a stronger factor leading to community violence than poverty.
PhillyFreezer_ t1_ivfy5ea wrote
I mean this in a very serious way, but have you acted on any of these things? Like have you donated your time or resources to further any of these goals? I get what you're saying in general, but I see your comments on this sub almost daily about crime in NYC and it's almost always going hand in hand with a dig at the "progressives" you bring up each and every time. I feel like your long winded responses are more for the internet points and imprint on this sub than actually doing anything about it.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivg37mz wrote
I don't only post about crimes, actually.
For example, I've been posting a lot about the housing supply problems.
Does that change anything? I've been noticing a positive shift in the public debate about housing supply and NIMBY in NYC. Both here in this sub and in the public view on our city politicians. But I don't think I can take any credit for that.
I post primarily to learn more from thoughtful replies by fellow redittors. I don't only post to shout my views, but to also elicit meaningful/intellectual challenges to my views.
I learn a lot from truthful conversations here (when the other person is debating in good faith) and that has genuinely shaped my views many times.
After all, how should I know what to support in reality?
IF the dominant mainstream discourse was sufficient, we wouldn't be observing those issues in reality, or at least we would have an intellectually sound explanation for it.
That's just coming from my desire of educating myself before throwing myself behind any solution in ways that go beyond just understanding the mainstream opinion.
Traditional_Way1052 t1_ivgw50y wrote
The US is under policed? How do you get that impression. What numbers are you relying on. Who are you comparing against? NYC has an enormous police force. What do you envision?
brownredgreen t1_ivfbt1c wrote
Let's start by providing social services, free of charge or strings, to people who need them
Housing reduces crime
Education reduces crime
Healthcare reduces crime
Job opportunities reduce crime
Cops? Cops dont reduce crime.
hau5keeping OP t1_ivfdb85 wrote
But then how will we scare people into blindly increasing the nypd budget again ?!
/s
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfemmb wrote
>Let's start by providing social services, free of charge or strings, to people who need them
>
>Housing reduces crime
>
>Education reduces crime
>
>Healthcare reduces crime
>
>Job opportunities reduce crime
The above are all fair and square and shouldn't be ignored.
But you do know that violent crimes themselves increase violent crimes more than poverty, right?
Among progressives, there's more than enough advocacy for social services and economic improvements.
But there's very little attention to the principal role of criminal violence itself on perpetuating the cycle of violence, which prevent families from lifting themselves out of poverty and perpetuates disproportionally negatively outcomes for minorities/POC.
Why is that?
Edit: my reply below was moderated immediately after I edited it to included citations to academic papers (from the Psychology of Violence journal and the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine).
brownredgreen t1_ivfexjp wrote
Advocacy for social services doesn't equate to them being provided.
Until we HAVE those social services, that's what imma harp on.
Why isn't it what YOU are harping on?
[deleted] t1_ivffui9 wrote
[removed]
brownredgreen t1_ivfh12f wrote
Citation needed on it being the stronger root cause
princessnegrita t1_ivfkc7i wrote
They’re misquoting their favorite “source”. They do it every day.
The study was not testing for poverty as a root cause of violence, poverty was a variable that they considered in relation to what they were actually testing.
The source did say that exposure to violence is a strong predictor for violent offending which is common knowledge. It did not say that being tougher on crime is a solution at all.
Honestly even the source identified in their results the effects of poverty/neighborhood disarray on violent offending and said this:
“As expected, youth who reported higher levels of ETV (exposure to violence) and more perceptions of police bias also reported higher levels of CoS (code of the street/something that they said mediates the relationship between ETV and violent offending). In addition, youth who lived in neighbor- hoods with higher levels of disorder and in counties with more poverty reported higher CoS.”
The article ends by saying we can’t just solve this issue by reacting to exposure to violence after the fact, we have to prevent the violence from happening overall.
The don’t say how in the article, but as arresting/jailing people/reinstating cash bail are all reactions to exposure to violence, I’d bet money that’s making sure there’s a social safety net to help BEFORE a crime is committed is a much better option.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfihgd wrote
I edited my comment to include citations.
Edit: welp, it looks like the moderators don't really like citations.
brownredgreen t1_ivfj0c0 wrote
Lol, blaming the mods? Classy
My gf goes to another school bro, you wouldn't know her.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfkzvv wrote
I DM you the citations, if you honesty actually care about it.
brownredgreen t1_ivfntm8 wrote
Public forum. Gimme a public answer. I don't want you in my DMs.
brownredgreen t1_ivg49ou wrote
Buddy, I told you I do not want you in my DMs.
So what do you do? You DM me.
Fuck off.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivg7t6g wrote
I had DM you after you requested citation, but hours before you told me here you didn't want a DM.
user_joined_just_now t1_ivffp8s wrote
> Cops? Cops dont reduce crime.
FACT CHECK: False.
In an article from the Washington Post about alternatives to policing, even they acknowledge that this is false:
> Those who argue that the police have no role in maintaining safe streets are arguing against lots of strong evidence. One of the most robust, most uncomfortable findings in criminology is that putting more officers on the street leads to less violent crime. We know this from randomized experiments involving “hot spots policing” and natural experiments in which more officers were brought to the streets because of something other than crime — a shift in the terror alert level or the timing of a federal grant — and violent crime fell. After the unrest around the deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., police officers stepped back from their duty to protect and serve; arrests for all kinds of low-level offenses dropped, and violence rose. This shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that protests against violent policing lead to more violence; rather, it means that when police don’t do their jobs, violence often results.
Here's another article from Vox regarding the same thing.
sokpuppet1 t1_ivfpwfa wrote
> This shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that protests against violent policing lead to more violence; rather, it means that when police don’t do their jobs, violence often results.
Police aren't doing their jobs so we should... pay them more?
tuberosum t1_ivfs4wr wrote
Oh, I see you're not familiar with how policing budgets work:
-
When crime is low, you increase the budget to keep the crime low.
-
When crime is rising, you increase the budget to slow and reverse the rise.
-
When crime is high, you increase the budget to attempt to lower the crime.
-
And finally, when crime is going down, you increase the budget to make sure it keeps going down.
And you just repeat the cycle as appropriate, year by year.
user_joined_just_now t1_ivfs76l wrote
I, the excerpt I quoted, and the comment I replied to didn't say anything about paying them more.
Murdercorn t1_ivgh0bf wrote
Cops do not prevent crime. The police will stand on the next car of a train and just watch through the door while you get stabbed.
In fact, they also do not solve crime. 98% of major crimes go unsolved.
The police already have a fuckload of funding and they choose to use it on militarizing themselves and defending murderers-in-blue.
They do not choose to use the nearly $200 billion they get every year for better training to make them a humane organization of peacekeepers; the training they choose is called "Warrior Training", which encourages cops to see every interaction as though they are a warrior engaging with an enemy combatant.
Police have killed more than 100 children since 2015 in US, data shows
The police have proven they cannot be trusted.
They do not serve the people, they only serve the interests of capital.
The institution of the police department in America is rotten from its origins as the Slave Patrol all the way to up to present day.
brownredgreen t1_ivfhciv wrote
Now show me the stats on cops committing crimes but the cops wont arrest and charge and/or the DA wont prosecute so they dont show up on crime stats.
user_joined_just_now t1_ivfld20 wrote
I'm sure it's a huge issue, but like you said, we need to address the root causes of cops committing crime by providing them with more social services and housing.
After all, punitive justice is NOT the solution to crime!
brownredgreen t1_ivfoeko wrote
Education.
Cops need education.
Maybe like, on the laws they supposedly enforce.
omgwtfbbq7 t1_ivg1me6 wrote
There’s more to it than even that. You have to make law enforcement an attractive career to get people who are well adjusted and empathetic to consider it. I don’t know what all that entails, but more work needs to be done to figure that out. You also need people in the profession that are capable of absorbing education. For the most part, I don’t think that is the case as it stands today. There’s so many cultural factors about policing as well. It’s really naive to think more education is the answer. There’s so much more to it than that.
tonka737 t1_ivg1vsv wrote
Unrealistic
JewrieIrving t1_ivfa6sr wrote
It wasn’t a first time offense
>After that, Guallpa began drinking more and attacking his wife, who supported their family through her income from a clothing factory. “I could have called the police like a dozen times, but I never did because I was afraid of what would happen to him,” Guamán told New York Focus and Gothamist in an interview last year. Last August, after another assault, she did call the police.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfczuj wrote
>It wasn’t a first time offense
I didn't claim that he only offended once though.
I was pointing at how he came to commit his first offense, which is important for anyone who cares about root causes.
PM_DEM_AREOLAS t1_ivfiwe6 wrote
Wait wait you do this then blame “progressives” the people who have been advocating for mental health services for inmates are the progressive man
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivfk3et wrote
>Wait wait you do this then blame “progressives” the people who have been advocating for mental health services for inmates are the progressive man
I consider advocating for mental health services an actual progressive policy (not "progressive" between quotes). I have no problems with that and support it.
My criticism is aimed at the people who go around proclaiming that street violence is not a problem, as if criminal violence doesn't destabilize families and communities in ways that are not very different from the consequences of police brutality.
And yet these people somehow call themselves "progressive" (I put in quotes because they are anything but progressive).
PM_DEM_AREOLAS t1_ivggjzh wrote
But the problem is the punitive justice people like you seem to advocate for is one that would actively do harm.
Genuinely asking what tough on crime initiatives would you like to see enacted that you see progressives push back against
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivgm7dg wrote
I'm actually in favor of less punishment, I elaborated more in https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/yong64/comment/ivfq98g/
One specific policy that I see push back is the inclusion of a public safety consideration in the bail laws. I don't believe that's tough-on-crime, because every other state in the nation has it.
Stewart-Cousins is the leader of the NY Senate, and she had famously threatened to hold climate change and gun control legislations hostage just to block such measures.
And I don't believe blocking that is a progressive thing to be honest. That's why I refer to it as "progressive" in between quotes, or just fake-progressive.
Such things perpetuate inequities on POC and disadvantaged people and communities who are disproportionate victims of crimes.
Justinontheinternet t1_ivfld16 wrote
Wait Wait wait….SO WHAT YOU’RE REALLY SAYING IS… -Internet Karen
We Should All Hate people like this
justins_dad t1_ivfb6ha wrote
wHy DonT pRogRessIveS CaRe?!?
Why don’t regressives realize their out of date cruel draconian policies make things worse? https://reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/yoj2bu/judge_wrecks_a_womans_life_with_arbitrary_and/
VideoGamerConsortium t1_iviy26r wrote
Someone warned me. About you.
mission17 t1_ivfxpyu wrote
Friendly reminder to everyone that /u/NetQuarterLatte spent the entire last thread on this topic pushing unfounded conspiracy theories that there was a mass murder coverup on Riker’s Island. And then tried to play the 18 deaths in Riker's this year alone off as acceptable because “People outside of Riker's don't enjoy the privilege of not being murdered.”
Additionally, just today they tried to deny that fascism was a far-right ideology. And they also claim New York is more dangerous than Jacksonville despite having a significantly lower crime rate. In case you were wondering what their relationship with reality looks like.
Kriegmannn t1_ivhc953 wrote
Someone warned me about you 😰
mission17 t1_ivhx7wx wrote
?
Kriegmannn t1_ivhxbqr wrote
That’s really weird. I originally responded to netquarters comment, didn’t mean to send it to you lol
mission17 t1_ivhxis1 wrote
No worries.
[deleted] t1_ivfzn5u wrote
[deleted]
BSDC t1_ivgfkxr wrote
they are all over this thread (10+ comments), and you are correct.
[deleted] t1_ivgfzic wrote
[deleted]
NetQuarterLatte t1_ivi3yu9 wrote
It was meant as temporary. Your comments here says a lot about you, but I’ve unblocked you nonetheless. Hopefully we can have constructive dialogs in the future.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivfifuz wrote
/u/utamog: continuing here since the other chain was locked.
>Isn’t this article saying that an assault robbery was what snapped him in the first place?
No, the article is giving you a sequence of factual events. Any causal relationship is inferred only.
>You are advocating to let him out on bail so he can harm his wife more?
No, I'm taking issue with the comment by /u/NetQuarterLatte suggesting that his suicide was preventable by getting tougher on crime.
What's more likely: that Rikers is a horrible place that makes people want to kill themselves, or that getting hit in the head is the one-and-only reason he harmed his family?
mission17 t1_ivfz5x6 wrote
/u/NewQuarterLatte purposely blocks users they disagree with in order to block them from commenting on any comment chain they’re on to avoid confronting any pushback to their ideology.
SoggyWaffleBrunch t1_ivg7036 wrote
Correct. I had no idea what was going on in that comment thread until I switched to a private browser. /u/NetQuarterLatte should be banned from this subreddit.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivg0wr6 wrote
That's way funnier than my assumption about his post being deleted by mods.
mission17 t1_ivg1e4w wrote
It might be cute if they weren’t using it to constantly platform unfounded conspiracy theories and frame progressive boogeymen at every opportunity.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivg3c13 wrote
Maybe it's not as funny in the macro sense, but the sheer fragility required for an individual to shut out all opposing thought on purpose is mind-boggling.
Oh, and /u/Grass8989, since I can't respond in-line below after I got blocked by some fragile republican, here's what I wrote to you :
Sorry if it sounded like I took a stance on whether his should be a bailable offense.
I was strictly criticizing /u/NetQuarterLatte's view that being tougher on crime would've prevented this suicide.
sokpuppet1 t1_ivfpdb0 wrote
An indictment of both our prison system and our healthcare system.
"Her husband was taken to jail and received a bail he couldn’t afford. Less than two weeks later, he took his own life.
'I thought that maybe going to jail, he was going to go to some classes, some things for him to reflect on, and it wasn’t like that,' Guamán said. 'What happened was that he died.'"
justaguy891 t1_ivgjkzd wrote
USA has 25% of the world's prisoners with only 4% of global population. We are a prison island
Grass8989 t1_ivh0q3f wrote
We also just simply have more people that break the law, tell me any other first world country where you can shoplift 100 times and still be walking the streets. I can promise you in Japan, for example, that would not be the case.
justaguy891 t1_ivh5x2c wrote
You know what's funny is allegedly "authoritarian" countries that have 4x our population, have less prisoners.
Grass8989 t1_ivhpxpo wrote
It’s definitely not because they’re “softer on crime”. Japan has extremely strict drug laws, for example. Mere possession, even in small amounts, usually leads to years of jail time. Something that here you would even be bothered for.
butchudidit t1_ivgav9b wrote
I mean they make the choices for us.
You got 3 for the most part.
The gov wants you to either eventually get stuck in healthcare, in prison or working to death. The lucky and privileged people can actually retire and enjoy their remaining years
[deleted] t1_ivg6jio wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ivg9o3a wrote
[removed]
Holly-Wood1 t1_ivfdq3x wrote
Don’t drink no matter how tough it gets only makes it worse
serene_penguin1 t1_ivfpuf0 wrote
r/wowthanksimcured
[deleted] t1_ivfa17i wrote
[removed]
charleejourney t1_ivfdn0r wrote
WTF, he had brain trauma.
[deleted] t1_ivfesyp wrote
>Guallpa was sent to Rikers on Aug. 19 after being arrested and charged with 2nd degree strangulation in Queens County, according to the DOC.
So we as a society, think it makes sense to compensate the family of a man that strangled someone, and decided to kill himself?
Fuck that, hope they don't get a dollar. It was all his dumb ass decisions all the way to the end, nobody owes his family anything.
functor7 t1_ivfgm2j wrote
>So we as a society, think it makes sense to compensate the family of a man that allegedly strangled someone, and decided to kill himself?
FTFY
Riker's Island is mostly full of people awaiting trial and, therefore, innocent in the eyes of the law. The state has a duty to ensure the safety of the people in its custody, including humane living conditions where their basic needs are met. Even with convicted criminals, cruelty is not the purpose of prison but rehabilitation under the guidelines of the conviction. The state has a duty to ensure that the basic rights of all - even convicted murderers on death row - are upheld. The state can only infringe on the inalienable rights that are specifically outlined by the judge for the criminal offense. Anything more is cruelty and a human rights violation.
gwynnegr t1_ivff8x3 wrote
Do be fair, don't you think it's wrong that security is falsifying documents? Maybe you don't agree that this guy deserves to be paid out for - but this is very clearly a systematic issue and it should be punished.
[deleted] t1_ivffn98 wrote
She should be punished, but the state should absolutely not pay for anything. We need to change the laws such that people committing suicide in prison is not the fault of the state but in fact a stupid decision that the person made to kill themselves.
Im_Not_Really_Here_ t1_ivfiqov wrote
> She should be punished, but the state should absolutely not pay for anything
She's an arm of the state. The state wronged him.
[deleted] t1_ivff6fi wrote
[removed]
utamog t1_ivfgrxn wrote
People have lost their minds. Common sense like this is in such demand these days.
Outrageous_Ad4916 t1_ivf2twt wrote
Terribly sad. Head Injuries are some of the most terrible injuries to have because of the toll they have on cognition and mental health.