Paying people to not commit crimes...
-
DC Democrat Pens Bill That Would Pay People Not to Commit Crimes
The Council of the District of Columbia approved legislation Tuesday that would pay residents in the nation’s capital for not committing crimes.
The legislation, called the “Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results Amendment Act of 2016 (NEAR Act),” would establish an office to identify as many as 200 residents annually who are at risk of committing violent crimes or becoming a victim of such crimes.
The individuals would be instructed to participate in life planning, trauma informed therapy, and other programs; if they comply and do not commit crimes, the individuals would receive a stipend. The legislation was based on a Richmond, California, program that pays individuals who participate as much as $9,000 annually.
The D.C. program would cost $4.9 million over four years, the stipends alone adding up to $460,000 annually.
-
Or you could help them get jobs
-
Or you could help them get jobs
They already do that. When I was a correctional addictions specialist at a pre-release unit,, my office mate was the work-release counselor. Participating in work-relase (daytime jobs and returning to the unit at night-time) was a condition of early parole contracts.
-
You completeky missed the point.
Completely.
-
That getting them a job would be both better for them and for society as a whole?
-
risk of committing violent crimes or becoming a victim of such crimes
Top lel. Yuo got stabbies, no monies now.
-
I mean, if it worked, it would probably be a super cheap and effective way to reduce crime.
Of course people will complain, like when the teacher rewarded "that kid" for improving his behavior and not being a little asshole today, and the good kids said it wasn't fair.
-
That getting them a job would be both better for them and for society as a whole?
Yes, it would. You are not wrong about that. But they can get the stipend even if they have a job.
-
Pre-crime.
I seem to remember a movie about pre-crime in the Washington D.C. area, what was it called... Minority Parrot? Something like that.
-
People who are at risk of becoming victims of violent crimes?
They mean minorities and gays and the like? Will they be paid to convert?
-
you could help them get jobs
I think it's fair to describe employment (in most cases) as paying people to not commit crimes. If you've got a regular pay packet coming in, there's far less motivation to break into your neighbor's house and nick their telly.
-
The D.C. program would cost $4.9 million over four years, the stipends alone adding up to $460,000 annually.
That strikes me as comparable to, and quite plausibly lower than, the likely economic cost of processing hundreds of violent crimes. So even setting the social benefit of violence reduction completely aside, I can't see a prima facie economic case for immediate objections to the scheme.
-
-
Why do you hate rich people?
-
Of course people will complain, like when the teacher rewarded "that kid" for improving his behavior and not being a little asshole today, and the good kids said it wasn't fair.
Similarly it is cheaper to pay for housing of the homeless, however people will complain they are getting a free roof over their head.
-
Obviously, why would anyone get a job that doesn't pay enough to live?
I don't see why they should even exist! We should regulate that or something.
-
I don't see why they should even exist! We should regulate that or something.
Trouble with that is Politician's Syllogism tends to get in the way.
-
I think it's fair to describe employment (in most cases) as paying people to not commit crimes.
In most cases, employment is paying people to do a job.
-
That strikes me as comparable to, and quite plausibly lower than, the likely economic cost of processing hundreds of violent crimes.
Depends on how many crimes it actually prevents. They don't lose the stipend for committing crimes where they don't get caught, after all.
So even setting the social benefit of violence reduction completely aside, I can't see a prima facie economic case for immediate objections to the scheme.
Dang...I remember reading about this a few days ago, now I can't find where that was. They had cited some other cities who tried this and gave up when it didn't seem to work (ISTR at least one other example besides Richmond).
It all smells like a protection racket.
-
-
Why do you hate rich people?
Because I'm middle class, so I can only masturbate with $20s. Those literal-jerkoffs use $100s, and I can't.
