City pays "protection" money -- homicides and firearms assaults go down

[Buzzcook]

After reading the article it seems to me many of the posters here didn't.

It is not a simple exchange of money for refraining from criminal activity. The article says that the youths are mentored and gotten employment.

In the example given the young man is fully employed in a good job and still works with the program to reach out to other at risk young men.

That's pretty much a success story.

 

[ATN082268]

Personal responsibility?

It is not a simple exchange of money for refraining from criminal activity.

From the article: "The young men were invited to a meeting where they were told they would be eligible for payments of up to $1,000 a month if they participated in mentoring and meetings and stayed out of trouble."

It is except that you have to participate in mentoring and meetings. If these people aren't getting into trouble in the first place, then why include the provision (and payment) of staying out of trouble? People should be grateful enough to get free guidance to help make something out of their lives. Paying people to behave is a complete deflection of personal responsibility.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I think there is generally a conflict of interest when it comes to the ways in which crime is dealt with.

First one has to decide what we want the end result to be. Do we want crime to decrease? Do we want the criminals to have a horrible experience by issuing some kind of punishment? Do we want victims to feel vindicated?

Do we want something that will satisfy the individual who has suffered from crime or do we want to serve society as a whole?

Unfortunately, all of these seldom come from the same action.

Truth is that incarceration is not the best deterrent and indeed often fosters criminals into new areas of antisocial behaviour.

I once saw a very interesting documentary looking at different ways of addressing the issues of crime in different countries. The details escape me now except one point that has stayed with me. Myself, others on this forum etc who respect the law do so not from fear of punishment but from sense of duty.

We've seen someone walking with their back-pack open and an easily accessible camera or walked past a drive where an empty car is idling. We don't steal them not because we'd get turfed into jail but because we've feel it is wrong.

So in that respect, looking to prison to solve issues is not the best course. Having said I can well see why someone who was victimised would want to see the other punished. However, for the most part, although the individual will think it serves them right, statistically, the likelihood is that the perpetrator will re-offend upon release after considerable public expense: society is not served by that incarceration over the long term.

Rehabilitation, whilst not giving the victims the "not so clever now, are you scumbag?" feeling of seeing them sent down for 5 years, does tend to reduce rehabilitation rates, certainly in the situations that I have seen figures for. One of the reasons for petty crime is a lack of a sense of ownership within society. The people often feel that they are part of the society and have been rejected: why should they then respect it? There was a scheme where young offenders were tasked with clearing an area alongside volunteer locals. As other were involved it felt less like a punishment. It included tidying parks and painting over grafitti. Once don, they felt pride in their contribution and offence when someone littered the area or defaced the new mural. They had learnt to care about the community they inhabit because they'd had direct influence on its well-being, something they'd not had before.

So if a scheme is aimed at rehabilitating before a crimes are committed, before there is the expense of prosecution and imprisonment and before someone's life is tarred by a criminal record it seems to me to be a wise investment, provided if it is yielding results.

 

[TimSr]

...to young men most likely to be involved in violent crime

This is the most troubling part to me. It basically says good responsible kids get nothing, while their parents have to pay thugs to temporarily act like their kids act with good parenting. Somehow the old method of not rewarding good behavior from some because it is expected, and rewarding others because it is not expected stinks of a double standard. Pay them all, or pay none of them.

 

[NJgunowner]

I'd prefer a system that puts them through a trade school or college (if they're capable) and gets them a job. Then they can pay taxes that helps the next kid.

 

[2ndsojourn]

^^^ I agree.

"...and gets them a job."

Yeah, so they can buy their own stuff instead of stealing mine.

 

[LancelotLink]

Cobra Effect.

I suppose now that animal tests are done, we can move onto human subjects.

I suspect the results will be the same.

 

[44 AMP]

First, lets all agree that correlation is not causation.

"Crime is down, because of our program" is no more valid than "Crime is down because we eat bread".

You want to make a case where "mentoring" and cash incentives are making the difference, show me where they AND NOTHING ELSE is doing that.

Also, beyond greed, what is the impetus for these at risk young men to actually get a job and (gasp) WORK for a living? If you are already paying them to get mentoring and stay out of trouble, why should they actually work?

I'm afraid I'm still mentally stuck in the era where the money you got from working was the reward for the work, and the work included all the "prep" you went through to be someone that someone else would hire.

That meant going to school, actually LEARNING something more than the latest social fad, and going out into the world to find a job. And keeping it up until you GOT a job. THEN, looking for a better job, if you desired.

Teach them how to find a job, ok. Even find them a job, ok..I guess. BUT, PAY them to behave while you do this? No.

One can make the (valid) argument that it is the responsibility of parents to support our little darlings, until they establish themselves, on their own.

If you want to claim it is the responsibility of the city, or the state (or any govt.) and so by extension, the taxpaying public, I don't agree.

And here's another point, if you are going to pay people to "stay out of trouble", where's the "equal treatment under the law"??? Better pay EVERYONE who "stays out of trouble", age, race, religion, gender, and sexual preference cannot be discriminated against, you know.

Can a 75yr old retired grandma enroll in the mentoring program, and get paid for not breaking the law? If not, you're not being very fair, are you???


And, I do so hope these at risk kids pay all the taxes on the money they are getting...

Sorry for the rant, but I just think this is wrong on so many levels, I get a bit bombastic.

Programs to help young people (and especially the "at risk" young people find jobs are good things, but they all depend on the desire of the individual. I don't see how paying them $6.25/hr (based on $1000 a month and a 40hr work week) for NOT working 40hrs a week (how many hours a week are the mentoring classes, anyway???), and NOT breaking the law, while not working, I just don't see how that increases the desire to get a job....

Is it the idea that with no money and no hope, giving them a little money will give them the desire to get off their asses and WORK to get more????

Is that reasonable, to you???

 

[Pond James Pond]

I just don't see how that increases the desire to get a job....

I get your point and not saying you are wrong. As stronger work ethic is part of being a responsible member of society.

But what if, simply, there is no work.

I feel the same way about some fairly antisocial people and I think "Instead of boozing your day away and trashing stuff, why don't you get a job?!"

But then I have gone through some towns here in Estonia and there is just nothing there. Nothing.
There are no enterprises, there is no investment. Nothing. When that happens I can see the cascade effect that ends with young people with nothing to do, but petty crime.

I know Estonia is not the US in, size, economy nor resources but some parts of the country must be pretty hard up too. Sometimes living right next door to affluence.

 

[Tom Servo]

When that happens I can see the cascade effect that ends with young people with nothing to do, but petty crime.

We have the same issues in many places here. However, that doesn't excuse aberrant or illegal behavior.*

The only lasting fixes will be those that grow economies, improve educational opportunities, and provide useful outlets for troubled youth. Of course, those are long-term investments that take a while to bear fruit. They won't shore up the numbers in time for the next election, which is really what this is about.

* I don't think you're implying that, but the argument is often used to excuse or ameliorate such things.

 

[Pond James Pond]

However, that doesn't excuse aberrant or illegal behavior.*

No, it doesn't, but it does go a long way to explaining it.

As was said earlier: we need to find the causes before we can find the cure...

... and boredom, lack of aspirations, lack or work, lack of education and perceived lack of hope are all major factors in most troubled areas in the world, not just western societies.

 

[Sequins]

As soon as I can make more money killing innocent people for no reason except to collect a cash reward for stopping, than I can make at my real job, I wonder what I'll do?

I think this program incentivizes criminal behavior. Norway has a marginallu criminal society. As other posters said they do not commit crime because they choose not to, rather than out of fear. I think Norway would see no change if they took on a hang em high prison sucks style like America has, and we would see no change from adopting Norways system.

 

[BWM]

I say NO to giving money to them. Put them to cleaning the streets that they live on and do some painting 8 Hr of work will learn them more! They can paint the fire plugs and yellow lines on the curbs paint no parking sings. This will give then good work for there pay! Work never hurt any one!!

 

[44 AMP]

But what if, simply, there is no work.

I agree, when there is no work, there is no work. But outside of specific individual places and times, this is not the case in the US.

What there is, is a shortage of work that meets the self image of a lot of the people who should be looking for jobs. Work they feel is suitable, and with suitable compensation. It's not a matter of no work, it is a matter of no work they are willing to do, for what it pays.

The social issue in the US that some call undocumented workers and others call illegal aliens shows quite clearly that there is work. If there were none, they would not come here looking for it. It really is that simple.

Without drifting too far or naming all the various causes, reasons and theories, just consider this, Those "at risk" poor who turn to crime because "there are no jobs" are right alongside the illegal immigrant who does any job and every job they are physically capable of to earn money.

All the manual labor work in agriculture, construction, lawn care, etc., they go for, and they earn money doing it. Tell me why an "at risk inner city young man would bust his butt doing physically hard work for the lowest legal wages, when they can go to mentoring classes, part time, pretend to look for work, part time, and what ever they want, as long as they don't get caught, or just sit on their butts, and make $1000 a month???

I think any incentive from the mentoring would be canceled by the dis incentive of being paid for looking for work. So at best net zero sum, and tax money spent for virtually nothing.

Perhaps I'm looking at it too simply, but when you train animals, you don't give them the treat before they learn to do the trick.

people, of course are not animals*, but it is surprising how well some principles apply to both.

* some folks will happily debate this point...

 

[Pond James Pond]

The social issue in the US that some call undocumented workers and others call illegal aliens shows quite clearly that there is work.

That there was work. If an illegal immigrant is doing the job it is that it (the job) is no longer available to anyone else.

Perhaps throwing the book at those employers, whose willingness to pay people less than they should (minimum wages presumably not met) under conditions that probably don't meet employment condition standards would mean there are more jobs for legitimate job-seekers/potential employees.

I don't know where Richmond, Cal. is but I looked a few figures and there are areas of California that registered around 23% unemployment in early 2014. That is BIG! Unemployed does not mean unemployable, nor does it mean disinterested in finding work. Sometimes, there simply is no job.

I'm not saying that they're all little misunderstood angels, but I can imagine this type of scheme working with some.

Some people do just need a direction recalibration to realise there is a way out of the rut. Not all, but some.

I think schemes such as these should be explored and the only way to find out are pilot schemes.

 

[JimPage]

I taught some college courses at a nearby prison. One of the "clients" (they don't all them prisoners even though they are) told me that it costs $25,000 to house a prisoner. He said it would be easier if the state just paid him $25,000 a year to be good.

 

[barnbwt]

"Cobra Effect.

I suppose now that animal tests are done, we can move onto human subjects.

I suspect the results will be the same."

I suspect, if you make life too easy for your impoverished (i.e. remove even the incentive for criminal behavior by flooding them with resources freely) other cities' impoverished will move in to partake, until there are insufficient resources to keep the charade going. This also assumes that criminality is not motivated by other things than lack of money, btw (entertainment, poor impulse control, drug use). I would agree that for the segment of the poor that are truly desperate (for food, housing, addiction) this could possibly forestall the times when they would steal or rob to sustain themselves.

But see again that part about what causes the ride to stop.

"what if there is no work"
Well, in a free society, one would move to where there is work, and America is so large that has almost always been the case historically. And when there wasn't, the same was still true, and Americans emigrated. With programs like this however, there becomes tremendous incentive to stay in place and try to make do with what little you are given by the state, which results in the desperation causing people to abuse one another rather than simply move to where opportunity is more viable. It's great for elected politicians, however, since the same impulse keeps them in their high-backed chairs, and they can compete with each other to attract the most poor people by pretending to be noble (which fools a lot of the wealthier ones).

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"He said it would be easier if the state just paid him $25,000 a year to be good."
You'd have to pay me a lot more than $25,000 to be good. Otherwise, I'd feel the need to 'supplement' it, through what little means are available to me in a place where everyone is more concerned with staying in place (on the dole) and existing, than in being dynamic & productive. We already do exactly what you are stating in the form of public welfare, which was originally conceived to keep people from rioting for bread in the streets, and jobs programs which were conceived to keep young men specifically from doing the same. It was no coincidence that FDR's depression-era CCC programs took inner-city men way out into the boonies where they could not organize (or get press coverage), and why cities were careful to have soup-lines in place no matter what.

Although, it was also no coincidence that FDR himself caused a great deal of poverty and desperation in rural areas by burning fields, and destroying cattle (pouring kerosene on the animal's corpses so they could not be eaten). All to keep wealthier growers' food prices artificially high in an era where wages were collapsing, while doling out 'free' alternatives to the bums nouveaux courtesy of the friendly government...which made sure they knew who to vote for next election

TCB

 

[Pond James Pond]

one would move to where there is work

That costs money... Not just the moving, but accommodation once arrived and funds to tide one over until that job does turn up.

I just don't think "Just get a job.." is always that simple.

Nor do I think there is only one "solution", one "cause" and one "outcome". There is no country with a capitalist system that has achieved 0% unemployment

I bet there are folk in that scheme who'd welcome the chance to get back on track and make a change for the better. They're not all going go be free-loaders, any more than they're all going to be rags to riches successes and future pillars of the community.

It's like choosing a gun. Everyone says that no gun can do it all (except my Redhawk, of course) and so when one chooses one goes for the gun that gives the most benefits, the fewest pitfalls all for the price we're willing to pay.

Perhaps schemes such as this should be looked at in that light: don't focus on those who'll abuse it, focus on those who will be better members of society for it... (unless the abusers are the majority, in which case try something new)

 

[44 AMP]

There is no country with a capitalist system that has achieved 0% unemployment

Is there any country without a capitalist system that has achieved 0% unemployment?

I don't know of one.

If there is one, did they REALLY achieve 0% employment, or are they just creatively select when reporting the numbers??

(hint, if you have starving peasants, you have serious unemployment)

"He said it would be easier if the state just paid him $25,000 a year to be good."

well, of course. It would be much easier. FOR HIM!!!
And, of course, his word is good, he's a convict!!!

You'd have to pay me a lot more than $25,000 to be good. Otherwise, I'd feel the need to 'supplement' it,

No doubt, but then you would be officially "greedy".

here is another problem with paying people not to commit crimes, the people who commit crimes already, will take your money, make all the promises you want, and then go and commit the crimes anyway, because it is what they WANT to do.

NO ONE commits a crime believing they will be caught and punished. If they recognize the risk at all, they believe it is something that could happen, but won't happen to them, because they are ...(insert delusional belief here)

Look at the targeted "at risk" population. (at risk of falling into a criminal lifestyle). It is made up of three kinds of people. Those who are honest, and will never become criminals by choice, those who have already become criminals by choice, and aren't classified as criminals only because they have not been caught yet, and those who may become criminals, but have not yet.

Now what do you think the percentages of each (by population numbers) are?
I think the largest percentage will be the honest citizens. Paying them to not break the law, while a benefit to them, personally, gets nothing you didn't already have, and if your stated purpose for the money is to reduce crime, the money is wasted. Paying honest people to stay honest does not affect the existing crime rate, which, by definition, comes from people NOT BEING HONEST.

Paying the dishonest to be honest is also a waste of money, while you might have an individual success here and there, in general they will take your money, consider you a fool, and go right on doing what they do. MONEY WASTED, again.

You might be able to claim some successes with those on the brink of a criminal life, but how do you quantify that?, how do you even determine who that is? You can't. All you can do is see if they show up on the lists of arrests /convictions. If they don't, is it because your payments worked? Or because they were always an honest person to begin with? OR because they just haven't been caught, yet???

Isn't this just throwing money at a problem and hoping it cures it???