Lion of the Blogosphere

Did tough-on-crime laws deter crime?

Since it was brought up in the comments about Bill Clinton getting pissed off at Black Lives Matter…

As criminologists know, there are two types of deterrence: specific deterrence and general deterrence. The most obvious specific deterrent is when a criminal is locked up in prison, he can’t commit any crimes. Because we know that criminal behavior is, in almost all cases, not a one-time thing but a continuing behavior, by putting a criminal in prison he is removed from the population and unable to commit crimes. So when the incarceration rate quintupled from approximately 0.1% to 0.5%, removing those criminals from the streets surely reduced the amount of crime.

The idea behind general deterrence is that knowing that the criminal laws have gotten tougher will cause criminals to rethink their criminal behavior. I strongly suspect that this has little if any direct effect on criminals, because the criminal element has both low future-time orientation and has low information about changes in criminal law. Some people might think that if you raised the prison sentence for being a drug dealer from one year to 20 years (and I think that something like that actually happened), all of the drug dealers would flee the field and seek to make money in criminal activities that have a lower criminal sentence. But nothing of that sort ever happened.

I believe that what reduces crime is the PERCEPTION, on the part of the criminal element, that we live in a society where crime is not tolerated. Of course, our attitude towards crime did change when things gout out of hand in the 1980s, and the tough crime laws of the 1990s reflected that attitude, and some of that attitude did trickle down to the criminal element. But I think that even more important are changes in police tactics like hot-spot policing and stop-and frisk. Stop-and-frisk lets the criminal element know that crime is not tolerated, and that law enforcement it out there watching them.

During the last two years, I have watched as we have lost the political will to not tolerate crime. We are definitely at the beginning of a new crime wave. The reason why it doesn’t happen overnight is because of HABIT. Once people get into the habit of behaving lawfully, the habit stays with them. It takes a while for habits to change. But the current message the criminal element is receiving is that society is no longer going to be tough on them, and we will see more and more people break their habit of law abiding behavior in favor of a new habit of criminal behavior.

* * *

Because putting people in prison for a long time doesn’t deter any crime except for the person incarcerated, this indicates that we could probably make some changes to our sentencing system in order to reduce crime. Criminal sentences tend to be based on how evil we think the crime is (and therefore how much the criminal is deserving of punishment). During the 1980s, we decided that drugs were really evil and we increased sentences for drugs. A better way to determine sentences would be based on the likelihood that the person, if allowed back on the street, would commit more crimes, and the seriousness of those crimes (or put another way, the extent to which those likely future crimes will make our society a worse place to live). Crimes that have a higher recidivism rate should, therefore, carry longer prison sentences.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 8, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Posted in Crime

78 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You are missing certain key points, like for example drug dealers. If we could arrest all the drug dealers and put them all in jail, you would think that would end the drug epidemic. Of course what would really happen is that new dealers would move in to take the place of the dealers that had been put in jail and you would have just as many drug dealers on the street as before.

    For crimes like drug dealing, locking up criminals really does little if anything to reduce the number of criminals on the street. Now for some other crimes, it clearly does work. Locking up buglers or street muggers can clearly reduce the rate of those crimes.

    The basic problem with our current mass incarceration system is way too many people are in prison for drug crimes. The buglers, street muggers, robbers who do stickups in stores and other violent behavior belong in jail.

    mikeca

    April 8, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    • Read https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/review-of-the-collapse-of-american-criminal-justice-by-william-j-stuntz/. The author explains that drug laws were increased under Nixon precisely for the purpose of attracting (operating as a honeypot) for those who would otherwise choose different, more disfavored, crimes like burglary, etc. The theory claims that there is a set amount of criminal behavior that any population will experience and that the moving parts are not how much crime exists (criminals gotta do crime) but rather how that criminality gets expressed. By creating a hard to resist honeypot in the form of drug sales by artificially increasing the price and leaving the market to criminals, drug crimes draw those who would be engaged in burglaries, etc. away from those hard to prosecute and victim-heavy activities into activities that are easier to prosecute and where the general public is harmed less. If you return drugs to the lawful market, so the theory goes, other crimes will start rising. In my state which legalized marijuana, this has already started happening. Property crimes are way up since legalization.

      Curle

      April 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm

      • Pro drug legalization people generally claim that drug prices have been going down for the last forty years. Although the relevant statistic for what you’re describing is street level drug dealer profits not overall price.

        Also people generally cite studies showing that drug use declines with legalization do those studies also find increases in other crimes?

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        April 9, 2016 at 6:59 am

      • That’s fascinating. A good reason why I read this blog.

        DollDancer

        April 11, 2016 at 11:12 pm

    • This is a libertarian talking point.

      In reality, drugs is how the police convict gangbangers. The police go after them because they are gangbangers, not because of drugs. Drugs is how they can get convictions when people won’t snitch.

      Dan

      April 8, 2016 at 9:11 pm

      • Exactly.

        Drugs a piece of physical evidence.

        map

        April 9, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    • mikeca,

      “The basic problem with our current mass incarceration system is way too many people are in prison for drug crimes.”

      This is basically not true.

      The vast majority of criminals are in prison for very serious predatory crimes, like rape, murder and robbery. The only drug dealers you will find in prison are mass traffickers.

      It is simply a libertarian myth that the prison system is at capacity because of drugs.

      map

      April 9, 2016 at 9:55 pm

  2. HBD = put them in jail until they age out of violence, execute them, sterilize them,

    That would be my low-crime plan.

    If all violent criminals were given vasectomies (to prevent more violent types being born) and kept in jail until they aged out of crime, within 20 years the violent crime rate would drop drastically.

    A good way to ease this in would be a vasectomy if convicted of a violent felony…then reverse the vasectomy after the required 15 or 20 years are served, reducing TFR of violent felons without the committment to “lifelong sterilization”.

    Right now violent felons have an equal or higher TFR compared to non-violent innocent citizens. That needs to change or we will fight the battle again every generation.

    jjbees

    April 8, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    • You said what I was going to say with regard to this observation “because putting people in prison for a long time doesn’t deter any crime except for the person incarcerated,”

      To the extent criminality is heritable, keeping men who would otherwise be passing on criminal tendency genes from procreating will lower crime in future years.

      Curle

      April 8, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    • +1

      XVO

      April 8, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    • Better yet, castration upon being sent off to prison.

      CamelCaseRob

      April 8, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    • You also need some plan to segregate them after they’re released (as well as all the asshole non convicts of the world) so that decent people don’t have to put up with their quality of life crime. Go through the ghetto and there are loads of old people drinking, yelling, playing loud music, etc a lot of which inevitably bleeds into nicer urban areas.

      Also are that many people impregnating women while in jail that sterilizing them during their sentence would have an effect? Just doing some quick research the chances of successful reversal of vasectomy declines dramatically the longer its been since the original procedure so your plan doesn’t really work. There really needs to be investment in developing long term male birth control similar to what exists for women. The development of which was funded by the feminist movement which goes a long way to explaining why nothing similar exists for men. I’m very sympathetic to your argument but even I don’t like the idea of permanently sterilizing people.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      April 9, 2016 at 7:17 am

    • I’m very sympathetic to your argument but even I don’t like the idea of permanently sterilizing people.

      Why not? The genetic factors that make these men unsuitable fathers won’t be improved if their sterilization is easily reversible and temporary.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      April 9, 2016 at 11:22 am

  3. My first reaction to the broken window theory of crime was heavy skepticism, but I’m starting to think there is some truth to it.

    Tommy Rimmy

    April 8, 2016 at 6:32 pm

  4. If I remember correctly, most research shows that the deterrence effect is much less sensitive to the severity of punishment than to the probability of getting caught. This is related to your observation about the perception of crime not being tolerated.

    Squacky

    April 8, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    • +1. This is exactly what I have also heard the research indicates. It is not about the severity of punishment, but the odds of punishment.

      Blake

      April 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    • +1. It is not about the severity of punishment, but the odds of punishment

      Blake

      April 15, 2016 at 12:39 pm

  5. For God’s sake, if we can send our complete industrial base to China, then send 95% of our prisions there too!!!!

    Anonymous

    April 8, 2016 at 8:25 pm

  6. I don’t know why people think drug crimes are so benign. It’s the nature of the drugs themselves that sellers will tend be users as well, and have terrible judgment. Sort of the way a roided-up Lance Armstrong thought he could be a viable candidate for governor of Texas. The drugs make them stupid and myopic.

    Mrs Stitch

    April 8, 2016 at 8:55 pm

  7. In cities where police have been made to pull back (St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago), crime has skyrocketed immediately. But three large cities with around 4 million people is way too small a data set. From a proper study sample, the police should let every US city revert to its natural state.

    Dan

    April 8, 2016 at 9:19 pm

  8. “Because putting people in prison for a long time doesn’t deter any crime except for the person incarcerated”

    I think gangbangers know when their friends are getting long sentences.

    I don’t actually know anybody in prison, so the length of sentences is not something I think about, but I am sure gangbangers know lots of people in prison.

    Dan

    April 8, 2016 at 10:35 pm

  9. For someone who has a high IQ, you seem to have forgotten what “deterrence” means. It is largely to prevent people from committing a crime through some form of discouragement, such as the prospect of incarceration or some other criminal penalty. “Specific deterrence” is just incapacitation of criminal through incarceration. “Incapacitation” is the correct term.

    Latias

    April 9, 2016 at 1:03 am

  10. Long prison sentences completely eliminated large scale production of LSD in the United States for most of the 00’s. You need advanced chemistry skills plus access to tightly regulated precursors to order to produce it. The type of people who have those skills have high time orientation. They saw people get put away for 20+ years for LSD production and avoided getting into it.

    Lot

    April 9, 2016 at 1:48 am

    • >>Long prison sentences completely eliminated large scale production of LSD in the United States for most of the 00’s.

      And that sucks, because LSD should be available. Sure it can be abused, but in small doses it has been seen to be beneficial for some psychiatric disorders. Ketamine has recently been found to be very helpful for intractable depression. Who knows what LSD may ameliorate if they won’t allow even doctors and researchers to investigate it?

      Daniel

      April 10, 2016 at 12:25 am

      • “Large scale”, maaan?

        Glengarry

        April 10, 2016 at 4:51 am

      • Stupid libertarians.

        Dan

        April 10, 2016 at 5:28 pm

  11. “Did tough-on-crime laws deter crime?”

    I really don’t know.

    I remember a huge focus on the war on drugs. Now half the states have legal MJ. As far as I can tell, this hasn’t caused a tidal wave of crime, such as Nancy Grace predicted.

    Every major US city I visit now is better – less graffiti, crime, urban dissonance, etc, than it was in the 80’s. Just cleaner and nicer.

    What happened? I don’t know. Gentrification? Longer sentences? General intolerance of crime? Cell phones? No one carries cash anymore?

    esiz

    April 9, 2016 at 1:58 am

  12. “I strongly suspect that this has little if any direct effect on criminals, because the criminal element has both low future-time orientation and has low information about changes in criminal law.”

    I think this is wrong. I’ve spent time in jail and prison and even the stupidest inmates in jail have a pretty good idea of what kind of plea offer to expect, whether or not they should reject the first one it it’s too high, and they all know who’s a good public defender or a bad public defender. These people come from criminal communities and they notice if crack dealers who get arrested disappear for three years or ten. They’re also constantly giving each other legal advice and most of it isn’t bad.

    The problem with strengthening drug laws is that all they do is get rid of the softer criminal element. Although there’s overlap, there seems to be some division of labor between violent criminals and nonviolent criminals. If the penalties for selling small amounts of crack on the street are harsh, all of a sudden your friendly neighborhood crack dealer who doesn’t mind going to jail every once in a while is replaced by some psychopath who will murder a customer if he likes his shoes.

    Horace Pinker

    April 9, 2016 at 9:28 am

    • This is correct.

      There is “diversity” (to use the word in its real sense, not the bogus latter day sense) amongst criminals as well. There are genetic, incorrigible criminals – and then there are just stupid, weak-minded people who go with the flow. I suspect that the vast majority of criminals that plagued our society during the major crime wave of the 1960s-1990s were the latter.

      I was mugged. Classic victim, classic perps — white chick, black teens. I am not saying that the two little fuckers who mugged me would have been Einsteins if it hadn’t been for the structural racism of our society, blah blah blah. I’m saying they were average black teens, IQ of 80, following the crowd.

      Lion says that criminals have “low future-time orientation” – what baloney. Criminals have street sense, and what is street sense than a finely honed “future-time orientation”? If authority figures demonstrate that this behavior is deviant and will be punished, they wouldn’t have done it. They are not imaginative or creative. Stupid people imitate, and the people they imitate are other stupid people.

      The problem with these arguments is that they ALWAYS come down to the drug war. Guys, the crime plague of the 1960s-1990s was much bigger than that. It was literally a feeling that you could be attacked at any time, any place, anywhere, and that your attacker was a black male teenager, and that no one would listen to you. You had to whisper about it. Actually we still do. I never see an honest discussion of the color of crime on TV, but then, I gave up on TV years ago.

      I still can’t believe that we went through that as long as we did. A civilized society (supposedly) that allowed its most productive citizens to be attacked by its most feral, and it went on for an entire generation. And we still aren’t allowed to talk about the racial aspects.

      The only honest treatment of the color of crime 1965-1990 I ever saw was by a former NYC anchor, Bob Teague, who was himself black. I forget the name of the book, but as a result, he became persona non grata, like the white lady who was just fired for pointing out the truth. The difference is that Teague didn’t back down and he died in obscurity. No one made a big deal of a man who helped to integrate TV news because he engaged in crimethink.

      gothamette

      April 9, 2016 at 1:37 pm

      • I never see an honest discussion of the color of crime on TV, but then, I gave up on TV years ago.

        Pittsburgh TV Anchor Is Fired After Racial Facebook Post

        Ms. Bell played detective in a way that some felt relied on damaging stereotypes.

        “You needn’t be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday,” she wrote.

        The post continued: “They are young black men, likely in their teens or in their early 20s.

        They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs.

        These boys have been in the system before.

        They’ve grown up there.

        They know the police.

        They’ve been arrested.”

        And then there’s this:

        https://mylifeofcrime.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/news-archive-haruka-weiser-murder/

        Rifleman

        April 9, 2016 at 3:47 pm

      • You had to whisper about it. Actually we still do. I never see an honest discussion of the color of crime on TV, but then, I gave up on TV years ago.

        You can see plenty of honest “color of crime” commentary in the comments sections of newspaper articles about crime (unless the editor decides to delete them).

        Tarl

        April 9, 2016 at 4:32 pm

      • Yes, you see that a lot. But it’s meaningless blowing off steam. I believe that the PTB realize that blowing off steam on the internet is basically useless.

        The great ratifier is television. Once something appears on TV, it has actually happened. If it wasn’t on TV, it never happened. Black domination of violent crime isn’t on TV so it doesn’t exist. You can scream all you want on comment sections of newspapers, it doesn’t matter.

        In fact, I think that is what’s most terrifying to the PTB about Trump. He’s on TV and he’s impossible to control. He could say anything, and they would be forced to cover it.

        gothamette

        April 9, 2016 at 8:23 pm

      • “A civilized society (supposedly) that allowed its most productive citizens to be attacked by its most feral, and it went on for an entire generation. And we still aren’t allowed to talk about the racial aspects.”

        A feature, not a bug of anarcho-tyranny; ie rule by oligarchs. Criminals at the top, criminals at the bottom. Sheep in the middle.

        fakeemail

        April 10, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      • I’m responding to your request in another thread for books on macroeconomics. You’ll need an elementary text to get the basics (similar to learning accounting). Any intro level macro textbook will do such as:

        http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-Edition-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453060

        Then read Karl Denninger’s book Leverage to get the things a mainstream macro textbook will NOT tell you because it is written by people with pro-globalist highly leftist views (at best they are cucks, at worst they are socialists).

        http://www.amazon.com/Leverage-Cheap-Money-Destroy-World/dp/1118122844

        Then scour Karl Denninger’s website for as many of his past articles as possible. I don’t know what is still available as he has been taking his stuff offline as a Galt’s Gulch protest against the lack of rule of law.

        https://market-ticker.org/

        Denninger is a genious auto-didact with probably a 150+ IQ. He’s the kind of guy that can fix your radio, your car, and your motherboard (he wrote the code that runs his web forum from scratch – he doesn’t use WordPress or any other content management system). It’s truly a shame his ingenuity will be lost to the world at large.

        He’s done many interviews as well:

        His stuff around the time of the financial crisis from 2009-2011 was especially great.

        You can also use Khan academy as a resource for basics:

        https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics

        TickerReader

        April 10, 2016 at 7:18 pm

      • Thank you, TickerReader. I will follow up on all these suggestions.

        gothamette

        April 11, 2016 at 8:58 am

      • @TickerReader –

        “NOT tell you because it is written by people with pro-globalist highly leftist views (at best they are cucks, at worst they are socialists).”

        In what way are globalists leftist? I see them as the fulfillment of 19th century liberal capitalist views. I am NOT being a semantic nitpicker here, I am asking something substantive. (LOL, fully expecting to get my head handed to me :):) ).

        gothamette

        April 11, 2016 at 9:00 am

  13. A lot of offenders are in prison for drug-law violations because the witnesses to the murders they also committed were too intimidated to testify against them. At least that’s how L.A. Times reporter Jill Leovy sees it in her book GHETTOSIDE: A TRUE STORY OF MURDER IN AMERICA.

    Based on an analysis by a Fordham University criminal law professor, Business Insider says Bill Clinton’s tough-on-crime legislation had a negligible effect on both crime reduction and the incarceration rate. The law focused on the relatively minor category of federal crimes and the incentives offered to states to toughen sentencing laws and hire more police went largely untaken:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-really-happened-with-bill-clintons-1994-crime-reforms-2016-4

    Mark Caplan

    April 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    • Again, we are focusing too much on the drug war and not enough on the vast number of personal crimes that created the crime wave of 1965-1990.

      The broken windows theory is totally misunderstood and confused with zero tolerance. You can all look this up yourselves, but briefly, part of the problem is that punks got away with a variety of “nuisance” crimes (panhandling, graffiti, pissing in the streets, squeegee pestering, you name it), as well as mugging.

      Mugging (the actual legal term is robbery, but I prefer mugging) was the really scary part of being in NYC in the bad old days. It was noticed that cracking down on nuisance crimes resulted in a reduction of real crimes, because – NEWSFLASH — nuisance criminals also committed “real” crimes.

      The reduction in crime was also a factor of technology. Computers made it easy to pick someone up on an old warrant. The amount of scofflawing in the 1960s was mind-boggling. Bratton cleaned all that shit up.

      BTW, there is a cuck aspect to all of this, which is now quite amusing. When the squeegee guys came on the scene, NRO style bleeding heart conservatives lauded this as individual initiative. The squeegee men were ghetto entrepreneurs! Actually, they were thieves who terrorized and coerced people into giving them money, and eventually squeegeeing was outlawed. But I distinctly remember that their biggest defenders were proto-cuckservatives.

      gothamette

      April 9, 2016 at 1:47 pm

  14. I agree with your argument that many criminals are too low information and future time orientation to be deterred by giving people longer sentences. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be criminals in the first place. But I still think there’s a “general deterrence” to locking up criminals because it drains the swamp that draws people into criminality. By quarantining the infected carriers (i.e. criminals) it prevents them from spreading the disease to others. Drain the swamp where the disease festers and fewer people are infected.

    destructure

    April 9, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    • The problem is that this uh, “disease” is genetically spread, capiche?

      Vincent

      April 9, 2016 at 1:57 pm

      • Some have a high tendency towards criminality. And some have a low tendency towards criminality. Their environments are unlikely to influence them either way. But others are influenced by their environment. Drain the swamp and they won’t become criminals.

        destructure

        April 9, 2016 at 7:45 pm

  15. “But I think that even more important are changes in police tactics like hot-spot policing and stop-and frisk. Stop-and-frisk lets the criminal element know that crime is not tolerated, and that law enforcement it out there watching them.”

    The 4th Amendment says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Stop-and-frisk seems like a violation of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment was passed because of the English use of general warrants that allowed government agents to search anyone and anyplace they wanted. Stop-and-frisk certainly seems like a general warrant to search anyone.

    This is not to say stop-and-frisk is not effective. It may well be effective at reducing crime. The British use of general warrants was probably an effective law enforcement tool also. The authors of the Bill of Rights just found the use of general warrants to be oppressive and a violation of basic human rights.

    Stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional by any normal reading of the constitution. We need to get back to effective constitutional law enforcement practices.

    mikeca

    April 9, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    • A normal reading of the constitution is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states.

      Anyway, I don’t see why it’s “unreasonable” to stop and frisk some guy who looks like he’s up to no good.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm

      • SWPLs pay a lot of money to get stopped & frisked. It’s called Swedish massage.

        gothamette

        April 9, 2016 at 4:30 pm

      • “the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states.”

        The Supreme Court gradually changed that. For quite some time now almost all the rights enunciated in the Bill of Rights have applied not only to the federal government but to the states as well. The process is known as the Incorporation Doctrine:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

        Lion could be right though that the Supreme Court used legal hocus-pocus to extend the Bill of Rights to the states. For the first hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, the Supreme Court held the opposite view, that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.

        Mark Caplan

        April 9, 2016 at 7:58 pm

      • Normal reading of the constitution in the 1800s was that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. And they should know better, some of the Justices back then were alive when the Constitution was ratified.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 9, 2016 at 8:39 pm

      • Indoctrination Doctrine is based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was vague, badly worded and probably constitutional. But SCOTUS uses it as a “wildcard” to do whatever they want even though they know it’s BS.

        destructure

        April 9, 2016 at 10:34 pm

      • Had too many distractions. “Indoctrination Doctrine” should have read “Incorporation Doctrine.”

        destructure

        April 10, 2016 at 3:59 am

  16. Lion,I’m afraid I don’t have any URLs or proof, but I have heard that if a child is molested in Chinatown, they will find the body of a Chinese man buried somewhere upstate, in pieces. There are things to admire in the Chinese.

    gothamette

    April 9, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    • After the civil rights struggle of the transgendered is complete, the next victim group to be liberated will be the child molesters.

      Lewis Medlock

      April 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm

      • Forget it Lewis, it’s Chinatown.

        gothamette

        April 9, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    • An old Seattle cop who worked the streets in the ’50s told me that the police never, ever, ever had a problem, call or any criminal response required for Seattle’s Chinatown. That the residents of that community self-policed to an extent that if anything untoward ever did happen it never slipped out to the whites in charge of the city at the time. Blacks, on the other hand, required massive amounts of law enforcement resources. It was almost as if ethnicity mattered in terms of criminal behavior and self-control.

      Curle

      April 9, 2016 at 8:31 pm

      • My info came from cops. More than one. The admirable thing is that not only do the Chinese self-police, but they are fucking brutal, no excuses. Very admirable.

        gothamette

        April 10, 2016 at 10:11 am

  17. Stop-and-frisk seems like a violation of the 4th Amendment. ….Stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional by any normal reading of the constitution.

    So you just like making up Constitutional law on the internet?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”

    Rifleman

    April 9, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    • A tenet of Constitution-worship is to ignore 200+ years of constitutional case law.

      Mrs Stitch

      April 9, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    • if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”

      Stop-and-frisk in practice went way beyond Terry v Ohio. In the vast majority of cases there was no reasonable suspicion that the persons being stopped and searched had committed, were committing or were about to commit a crime.

      mikeca

      April 12, 2016 at 9:45 am

  18. OT- Some blacks are trying to bring political correctness to Mexico . . . http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35981727. I don’t think they should hold their breath.

    Another point, just got back from a county convention and the Cruz people were organized, the Trump folks were not. Cruz people kept Trump’s folks (including me) completely off the delegate list for the state convention That means that the Cruz folks will own the state delegation at the national convention and even if forced to vote Trump on the first ballot will be waiting to vote Cruz on ballot number two.

    Curle

    April 9, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    • Trump can’t win a second ballot anyway so who cares?

      If we can’t have Trump, we want Cruz because he will destroy the Republicans down ballot.

      Otis the Sweaty

      April 10, 2016 at 6:29 am

    • One of the sadder/funnier things that Henry Louis Gates does is go to foreign countries where the concept of mixed race is accepted, and try to convince people who are partly black, that they are black, pure and simple. He himself is about 35% black, and in the US, that’s his 100% identity, but it isn’t so in other cultures.

      You could call him an American Imperialist.

      gothamette

      April 10, 2016 at 10:22 am

  19. A better way to determine sentences would be based on the likelihood that the person, if allowed back on the street, would commit more crimes, and the seriousness of those crimes (or put another way, the extent to which those likely future crimes will make our society a worse place to live). Crimes that have a higher recidivism rate should, therefore, carry longer prison sentences.

    Three strikes and you’re out, for starters.

    Glengarry

    April 10, 2016 at 4:57 am

  20. The long term way to control the ghetto problem is to also withdraw the gibs from moms, grammaw and baby mamas while Jamal is sent away.

    Pragmatically, try some sort of government works program rather than just gibs. There should be no excuse for Jamal to hang on the corner.

    (I’m sure the bleeding hearts would start chipping away immediately, “you can’t sentence Jamal, what about his baby mamas gibs??”, but it’s worth mentioning. It’s also amusing that Jamal is now made a provider of gibs.)

    Glengarry

    April 10, 2016 at 5:15 am

    • “The long term way to control the ghetto problem is to also withdraw the gibs from moms, grammaw and baby mamas while Jamal is sent away. ”

      That’s not going to happen. This is an example of useless internet babbling.

      gothamette

      April 10, 2016 at 10:20 am

      • You want useful? Here ya go: Carry a pistol or at the very least a knife and mace. Learn how to use them.

        Vincent

        April 10, 2016 at 11:21 am

      • Well, yeah it probably won’t happen, but would it work? It seems to me that the root of the problem is that the black community has lost the ability to police itself. Whether that policing is via shaming one’s neighbor, or disciplining children, or avoiding the twin siren calls of degenerate popular culture and leftist racial demagoguery. I recently offered up, on these very pages, the idea of using a carrot, something like an actual payment to kids who got through high school without a criminal record. I didn’t stick around long enough to bask in the the scoffing (or laughter) at that suggestion. Is the best we can hope for that locking them up is the best long-term solution? I’d be down with resegregation, but that sounds about as likely to happen as the bribery ideas.

        not my name

        April 10, 2016 at 11:39 am

      • The low future-time orientation of ghetto youth means that immediate rewards (like money at the end of every single week of good behavior) is going to be much more effective than any long-term rewards (like after 4 years of high school and 4 years of college you can finally get a job).

        We already spend like $10,000 per year on educating youth. An extra $50/week is only an extra $2600/year over what we are already spending, and is probably a better use of money than hiring more teachers or upgrading classroom technology, etc.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 10, 2016 at 1:10 pm

      • The low future-time orientation of ghetto youth means that immediate rewards (like money at the end of every single week of good behavior)

        Rewards?

        The correct technical term is *bling*.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        April 10, 2016 at 1:42 pm

      • In any event, the purpose of this is to induce ghetto youth to get into the HABIT of behaving in a middle-class manner.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

      • @Vincent: Carry a pistol or at the very least a knife and mace. Learn how to use them.

        There have been times that I’ve conceal-carried all three!

        Smartest Woman on the Internet

        April 10, 2016 at 5:32 pm

  21. OT: Don’t major in Criminal Justice…

    NYT, 04/08/16 – A Brighter Job Market, for Some

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/education/edlife/a-brighter-job-market-for-some.html?ref=todayspaper

    …hiring will be up 15 percent across all degree levels from last year…Of course, applicants’ experiences will vary, perhaps significantly, depending on their field of study and position sought. Recent graduates who majored in civil engineering and nursing had some of the lowest unemployment rates — 2.8 percent and 2 percent…In contrast, anthropology, geography and mass media majors faced jobless rates upward of 8 percent. Liberal arts majors, whose studies emphasize critical thinking, communication and creativity, were nestled in between, at 5.8 percent.

    Job conditions appear grimmer when viewed through the lens of another metric: the share of recent graduates (age 22 to 27 with bachelor’s degree or higher) working in jobs that do not require degrees. That number hovered at 44 percent at the end of September, high by historical standards, according to the analysis. The low was about 38 percent in 2000. But this phenomenon, called underemployment, may not be unusual…

    Paychecks have also edged higher. The median wage for recent graduates with only a bachelor’s degree was $43,000 in 2015, up from $40,000 in 2014, according to the New York Fed report. (Individuals with only a high-school diploma had a median wage of $25,000 in 2015.)…

    E. Rekshun

    April 10, 2016 at 4:06 pm

  22. one question I have is this – are all current events sort of a delayed reaction to things that happened years ago? Davis Aurini once said that “current events are nothing but history that happened twenty years ago, only we just noticed”.

    Maybe the crime rate won’t start rising until later.

    krustyk91

    April 10, 2016 at 5:02 pm

  23. It is my opinion that one can get used to almost anything so I don’t believe that longer prison sentences is the answer. I suspect that if prison is to be any kind of deterrent, a year that is dirty and brutal enough to make you never want to experience it a gain would do a better job.

    Goalkeeper

    April 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    • I say longer, brutal and dirty prison sentences should be applied. Its the only way to be sure.

      Vincent

      April 11, 2016 at 6:20 pm

  24. LA Times, 04/11/16 – LAPD arrests man accused of attacking woman after posing as Uber driver

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-arrest-fake-uber-attack-20160411-story.html

    Los Angeles police have arrested a man they say brutally sexually assaulted a woman after posing as an Uber driver, and then dumped her on a Westlake street after police tried to rescue her from the vehicle.
    LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said DNA evidence, including some collected from under the woman’s fingernails, led detectives to their suspect: Dartanyum Smith, a 39-year-old resident of South L.A….

    The victim, who was not publicly identified, was standing near 8th Street and Vermont Avenue when an SUV pulled up at about 3:30 a.m., Beck said. The male driver asked the victim if she was waiting for an Uber, the chief said, and “with some trepidation” she got into the car. Beck emphasized that the man was not an Uber driver, and said investigators believe he was able to guess the woman was waiting for a ride.
    The man drove the SUV about two blocks away, then began assaulting the woman, Beck said. She was choked unconscious several times but fought “valiantly,” Beck said, screaming loudly enough to draw the attention of nearby residents who called 911…

    E. Rekshun

    April 11, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    • “LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said DNA evidence, including some collected from under the woman’s fingernails, led detectives to their suspect: Dartanyum Smith, a 39-year-old resident of South L.A….”

      In other words, he was already in the system. For jaywalking, probably.

      Or else they randomly picked him out, discovered his given name was Dartanyum, and said, “he’s our boy.”

      gothamette

      April 11, 2016 at 8:44 pm

      • “Officials said Smith had an extensive criminal record, including a robbery conviction that resulted in prison time. But, they said, he had no prior history involving sex crimes”

        He took some cookies from the jar and spent 5 minutes locked up after getting a smack on the wrist. But no sex crimes…Yet. A prayer to SS Goetz and Zimmerman that she will see the light and purchase the proper holy icons and the most effective way to distribute them to the needy…

        Vincent

        April 11, 2016 at 10:56 pm

      • Hillary’s “superpredator” class of 1994 is now all grown up.

        Camlost

        April 11, 2016 at 11:07 pm

  25. A lot of offenders are in prison for drug-law violations because the witnesses to the murders they also committed were too intimidated to testify against them. At least that’s how L.A. Times reporter Jill Leovy sees it in her book GHETTOSIDE: A TRUE STORY OF MURDER IN AMERICA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper

    Cooper held strongly conservative political opinions.

    In 1991, he wrote in Guns & Ammo magazine that “no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society.

    These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition.”

    In 1994, Cooper said “Los Angeles and Ho Chi Minh City have declared themselves sister cities. It makes sense: they are both Third World metropolises formerly occupied by Americans.”

    Rifleman

    April 11, 2016 at 5:15 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: