Do you think the CTA/METRA will come back after Covid or will it become obsolete?

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by emathias

I think it's entirely naive to think CPD practices that are now under fire had anything to do with crime. Are you seriously defending cops like Burges?

And the boom you describe includes some recessions and, very relevant even higher cringe than we have now. Yes, even with the recent spike it was worse in the 1990s.

Plus I think much of the crime today revolves around the fragmentation of the drug trade as the DEA and related agencies actually make some progress in drug interdiction.

I'm actually pro-decriminalization for all drugs, because a) you could avoid sending things like dirty, impure meth into the streets, and b) cut a lot of revenue away from criminal structures.

The crime in the 1990s was the crackdown on coke. This one is the crackdown on meth and opioids. There's little to do about it from the local level beyond anti-gang work in general, which is a slow process in a democratic society.

Sorry, just saw this now! Anyway, the 2016 ACLU consent decree, coupled with other scrutiny of law enforcement, has had the effect of limiting proactive policing, and with that will come increased crime. The ACLU will dispute this to the bitter end, and one might argue that there were problems with proactive policing, as I acknowledged in my post, but the facts show what they show.

https://www.illinoislawreview.org/un...omicide-spike/

I mean, one cannot credibly argue that they want to eliminate the downsides of, say, stop and frisk policies because they unfairly target certain people, and then try to deflect the increased crime over to other things. They should just own that, and argue that it's an acceptable trade off to get rid of unfair policies. People are more inclined to listen to that, as opposed to telling them what's up is down. All that results in is people shaking their head and tuning them out, and fueling the bitter divide which continues to grow.

No, I'm not defending cops like Burges. Cops like Derrick Chauvin and Burges give good cops a bad name because they're often held up by the modern left as examples of all police, which leads us to policies which harm all of us. Personally, I think Chauvin should be sent a bill for all of the property damage which occurred last summer, and forced to work in a labor camp until he pays it off. He should be held accountable for the damage he caused.

You think much of the crime today revolves around the fragmentation of the drug trade as the DEA and related agencies actually make some progress in drug interdiction? I think this is a reasonable theory in part. But was this new for 2016 when homicides in Chicago suddenly spiked up? That's been the case for awhile, ever since the Feds began targeting organized gangs at least 20 years ago. It might be part of it, yes, but I don't think it fully explains the increases in homicides we've seen since '16.

I think a very large contributor to our recent crime spikes is the perceived lack of consequences for certain crimes. Some people feel as though there is little risk to committing certain crimes. That in turn, leads to a lack of accountability, which then in turn leads to much more serious issues, especially in communities which lack a strong social fabric. I do not think our States' Attorney's office has done a very good job on this score, and I think that's fueling increased crime.

If you believe the State's Attorney has done a good job, well, again, argue that she's getting rid of practices which are unfair and explain why we should accept the consequences. I don't see it but I'm willing to listen.

[BRU67]

Because of fewer stops in 2016, it appears that (conservatively calculating) approximately 245 additional victims were killed and 1,108 additional shootings occurred in that year alone. And these tremendous costs are not evenly distributed, but rather are concentrated among Chicago’s African-American and Hispanic communities.

https://www.illinoislawreview.org/un...omicide-spike/

I mean, that seems like quite a cost. And a very unacceptable one on its face. But I'd like to hear arguments from progressives that it is acceptable. Instead, they tend to point fingers, versus just owning it and saying "hey, I mean, yes there are more homicides, but here's why it's worth it: 1)......"

[BRU67]

Speaking of policies v. costs, here's a very sad and high profile example of the issue of bail that all of us are probably aware of by now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ail/ar-AAR50X6

The individual involved in the attacks had benefitted from the liberal bail policies of Milwaukee County before the horrific attack. But instead of arguing that this is a by-product of policies which are of greater benefit to eradicate discrimination or whatever, the powers that be are backtracking, pointing fingers in different directions, saying it was a one-off mistake, etc.

“The bail recommendation in this case is not consistent with the approach of the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office toward matters involving violent crime, nor was it consistent with the risk assessment of the defendant prior to setting of bail,” Chisholm’s office said in a statement.

Yeah, my foot. It's not "consistent with your approach" because there was a high profile incident that's now national news and you don't want to own it. If the individual had shot someone in a domestic incident in a low income neighborhood, no one would bat an eye. This is Exhibit, oh, 200,248 of what's infuriating about liberals (says a Democrat). I mean, bleep, if you are going to adopt these policies which you presumably believe are for the greater good, then own them. Don't gaslight people and deflect away the consequences of your policies.

[PJSaturn]

This is NOT the Politics forum. Thread closed.