America isn't prepared to deal with crime.

[SavannahMann]

We are not norway

take the democrat infested slums of America and move them to norway and let the vikings show us how its done

So is it something in the water that prevents anything from working in the US?

 

[Mac-7]

So is it something in the water that prevents anything from working in the US?

You tell me

I only know that we have a lot of criminals roaming the streets of America that the norway authorities dont have to deal with

 

[SavannahMann]

You tell me

I only know that we have a lot of criminals roaming the streets of America that the norway authorities dont have to deal with

Norways maximum security prison sees almost no repeat offenders. Now our Recidivism rate is about 75%. If we tried something different that works elsewhere. And it is only half as effective. Hell let’s say it just reduced our Recidivism rate to 40%.

That is still a crime rate reduction isn’t it?

You can’t tell me why it won’t work. You can only announce that it won’t. What infuriates you is that your reason for it not working is stupid. And you know it.

 

[Mac-7]

Norways maximum security prison sees almost no repeat offenders. Now our Recidivism rate is about 75%. If we tried something different that works elsewhere. And it is only half as effective. Hell let’s say it just reduced our Recidivism rate to 40%.

That is still a crime rate reduction isn’t it?

You can’t tell me why it won’t work. You can only announce that it won’t. What infuriates you is that your reason for it not working is stupid. And you know it.

Allow animals to roam the streets instead of locking them up?

The murder rate would skyrocket

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I currently live in the mountains in Arkansas, but was raised in Texas. I sure remember Bush sending them to the death chamber at record speed.

It actually took a lot of work between the governor and legislature to create what we call, The Fast Lane".

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Norways maximum security prison sees almost no repeat offenders. Now our Recidivism rate is about 75%. If we tried something different that works elsewhere. And it is only half as effective. Hell let’s say it just reduced our Recidivism rate to 40%.

That is still a crime rate reduction isn’t it?

You can’t tell me why it won’t work. You can only announce that it won’t. What infuriates you is that your reason for it not working is stupid. And you know it.

Recognizing that something doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean you can identify why it doesn't work.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Ok, so we’ve agreed that we can’t afford to simply lock up everyone. So California, which has overcrowded Prisons, andJails, does what they can. They decide to ignore lesser crimes, like Shoplifting. Of course, the results are predictable. Shoplifting increases, but by not arresting and detaining shoplifters who will get a few weeks in jail as a general rule, they are able to keep robbers, rapists, drug dealers, and of course murderers in jails, and prisons.

It’s a question that is facing California’s justice system constantly. Who do we lock up? So the answer of lock them all up is being tried, but they just can’t lock them all up. They are running at 137% of capacity. That makes it more dangerous for the prisoners, and much more dangerous for the guards and workers.

Building more prisons to lock them all up would cost even more money, and we’re already talking about ten billion dollars a year, which no matter how you look at it, is a hell of a lot of money.

Now, there is an alternative. One of the realities we see in the world is that recidivism, or those committing more crimes once they are out of prison is higher in the US than most other nations. For America, the rate is unbelievable. Roughly speaking three quarters of those who are released from prison will commit another crime and be back in prison within five years.

Recidivism Rates by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

So the first thing we could do, and yes, it would cost more money, is to start programs designed to reduce that number. Using California, and rounding up a bit. Of the 100,000 people in prison today, roughly speaking 77,000 will be in prison again. So that revolving door that everyone denounces, is based not upon the softness of prisons, or the willingness to release people who have completed their sentences, but the propensity of people to commit more crimes when they have been released.

We can try some things to reduce that. Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, and that saves them money, and reduces crime. That program is not based upon the idea that we’re not tough enough, but is based upon the idea that people can learn, and we can teach. Liberal nonsense according to some, but the results are there.

So let’s say we don’t get to Norways Recidivism rate. Let’s say we only cut our by a third. We get it down to fifty percent. That is still a reduction of twenty five thousand a year in California. Twenty five thousand fewer criminals. Out of the population of 100k.

That means we can lock up the repeat offenders longer, we can utilize the existing space more efficiently, and we reduce the crime rate at the same time. Twenty five thousand fewer criminals, means twenty five thousand fewer crimes.

Now, the program might not work, but it is worth a try isn’t it? We can’t build our way out of it. We can’t just build more prisons, we’re already paying a years tuition at Harvard as it is to lock up a single crook.

If Option A is not possible, we must look at other alternatives to see if anything else might work. And option A, just lock them all up, is not possible.

Try comparing the demographics of Norway and US and you can probably start to figure our why there's such a difference in recidivism rates.

 

[Woodznutz]

If you are taking about the shoplifting. Help me out.

You have three spaces in jail. You have four people being booked. Which three do you put into your limited jail space.

A) A man accused of murdering his wife.

B) A man who carjacked a woman and bashed her in the head with his gun. She has significant injuries and may die.

C) A man who robbed a liquor store with a shotgun.

D) A man who shoplifted $200 worth of crap from a drug store.

Now those of us who understand that jails and prisons are overcrowded would say the first three idiots need to be locked up.

I’m assuming you need to know the races involved before you answer.

Sounds like at least three out of the four were black (according to my profiling). And the lone white guy was only accused of murdering his wife.

 

[SavannahMann]

Recognizing that something doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean you can identify why it doesn't work.

No. But it does mean you start to try other things. It does mean you don’t just sit stubbornly denouncing any other solution.

At this point we are like the moron who has gambled away his house. Determined to win back all he’s lost. He can’t accept the problem is himself.

The problem is us. We think that we haven’t punished people hard enough. If only we got tougher, and frankly the conditions in prison would be considered animal cruelty if someone did that to a dog. I’m not sure how much tougher they can get.

Using California again. The medical care that costs about $36,000 per inmate per year. That isn’t fine medical care. We aren’t talking Beverly Hills clinics to the Rich and Shameless. We are talking setting broken bones and stitching up the cuts. A man in prison suffered with testicular cancer for nearly a year before it was finally diagnosed. He died. That by the way was part of the Supreme Court decision narrative that limited California to 137.5 percent of capacity.

We can’t afford to build more prisons. We can’t stuff more people in existing prisons. So our well worn and failing system is going to continue being a revolving door. People go in, people come out, and 75% will end up going back in.

So if we are determined to continue down that path, we need to accept we are going to have to cough up a lot more money. We will need hundreds of millions to build the prisons. Hundreds more millions to staff the prisons. Hundreds more millions for local cops. And probably half a billion for the courts to process the increased cases.

Other than creating employment opportunities for lawyers and guards. I’m not sure what the goal is.

Look above. Mac is convinced that the Liberals are just orgasming at the thought of turning someone loose. California. The liberal state. Argued before the Supreme Court that there was no need to limit the prisons to 137.5%. It would require the releasing of hundreds or even thousands of hardened criminals.

But read again what I write. I say if we try the Norwegian model. I don’t promise similar results. I just say it might lead to a reduction of recidivism. I point out the benefits of reducing that 75% repeat offender number to 40%. A reduction of less than half still means a reduction in the crime rate.

Nope. Won’t even consider trying it. One poster insisted if we got tough and got rid of the TV’s and stuff we could contain the criminals for a quarter of the cost. Security alone cost about $44,000 a year per inmate.

We know the system is broken. We know it isn’t working. It’s time to consider alternatives. I don’t know the Norwegian model will work. I do know doing nothing will keep not working.

 

[SavannahMann]

Try comparing the demographics of Norway and US and you can probably start to figure our why there's such a difference in recidivism rates.

That doesn’t even glance at the surface.

 

[Woodznutz]

60 days in a rehab facility for those caught using drugs will bring the crime problem in America down to a manageable level.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

That doesn’t even glance at the surface.

Actually it does, they don't have a constant stream of immigrants from all over the world coming in to the country every day. They also have essentially a pure culture with a thousand year history of working together for their common survival.

"Diversity" is not a benefit in such times.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

60 days in a rehab facility for those caught using drugs will bring the crime problem in America down to a manageable level.

Mandated treatment is pretty well worthless unless the user is ready to kick the habit that got them sent to rehab.

 

[Woodznutz]

Mandated treatment is pretty well worthless unless the user is ready to kick the habit that got them sent to rehab.

The point is to deal with crime first. Temporarily detaining addicts (especially) deprives the drug business of their easiest source of steady revenue. This will cause lots of dealers to quit the business, which will eventually make it harder for those addicts to get their drugs. It also reduces the crimes addicts commit in order to afford their drugs.

Of course, such a plan would meet resistance from those running the present failed system.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The point is to deal with crime first. Temporarily detaining addicts (especially) deprives the drug business of their easiest source of steady revenue. This will cause lots of dealers to quit the business, which will eventually make it harder for those addicts to get their drugs. It also reduces the crimes addicts commit in order to afford their drugs.

Of course, such a plan would meet resistance from those running the present failed system.

That hasn't proven to be true anywhere unfortunately and there are dealers inside both the prison system and rehab clinics so they never have to actually sober up.

Rehab is a waste of resources unless an addict is ready to quit. Unfortunately they rarely get to that point at all unless they've lost absolutely everything and still have enough undamaged brain cells to realize getting sober is their only remaining choice if they want to live and decide to do the hard work to get there.

 

[Woodznutz]

So is it something in the water that prevents anything from working in the US?

Inorganic minerals that not only clog up the arteries, but the brain as well.

 

[Woodznutz]

That hasn't proven to be true anywhere unfortunately and there are dealers inside both the prison system and rehab clinics so they never have to actually sober up.

Rehab is a waste of resources unless an addict is ready to quit. Unfortunately they rarely get to that point at all unless they've lost absolutely everything and still have enough undamaged brain cells to realize getting sober is their only remaining choice if they want to live and decide to do the hard work to get there.

My plan doesn't include rehab, just detaining addicts for a few weeks with treatment only if they are at risk of dying.

You really have to understand how drug dealing works to understand the fragility of it. Take away the easy, steady money taken from addicts and the 'dealership' collapses. Gangs that distribute and sell drugs for the cartels aren't going to work very hard or take many risks in order to peddle the stuff. That's why addicts are the lynchpin, and the weak link, in the whole drug business.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

If it's hopeless there are better things to spend our money on.

Sure, law enforcement and particularly border enforcement because that's where most of the really bad stuff is coming from.

Dry up the supply and you'll dry up a whole lot of addicts.

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure, law enforcement and particularly border enforcement because that's where most of the really bad stuff is coming from.

Dry up the supply and you'll dry up a whole lot of addicts.

That will never succeed as the cartels deliberately oversupply the market to cover their losses. Although finishing the wall would help.

Regarding fentanyl (the really bad stuff) addicts and users are well aware of the danger. Enter the Darwin Effect.

 

[HenryBHough]

Must take issue with the original thread title. America IS prepared to deal with crime as shown in 2020 when America elected criminals.

Oh, you meant crime committed by little people? Not Liberal Giants?