DC bill to pay people for not committing crimes

[brimic]

http://fox61.com/2016/02/02/dc-passes-bill-to-pay-people-stipends-not-to-commit-crimes/

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.

The bill doesn’t specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.

[MechAg94]

Is that like protection money?

[Ben]

So around $30K in welfare, EBT, and housing, plus $9k to please not commit crime. Plus no taxes, or maybe even a check from the IRS. Not bad.

[KD5NRH]

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs.

So the terminally clueless, always condition braindead are also eligible?  Will the behavioral therapy include not sitting in your car with the door open and your attention totally focused on your brand new top of the line smartphone?

[Firethorn]

Huh.  Complicated.  Personally, I'd just make 'not committing crimes' a condition of ALL benefits.

But on the other hand, not everybody is eligible for $30k worth of benefits per year, and if you're going to take somebody's time up with therapy and stuff, paying them to do so seems reasonable.  I know it's weird, but if you can successfully stop somebody from committing any felonies for a year for $9k, it's actually worth it over punishing them after they commit one or more.  Yes, things should be structured that this isn't some crazy benefit over those of us who aren't going to commit felonies anyways.

You also have programs like paying kids to go to school and earn acceptable grades.  Why?  They're so short-sighted that they can't comprehend how the education will benefit them later in life, so don't value it unless they benefit immediately from it.  Sometimes the lifestyle of the parent is such that the extra income provides the 'security' necessary to keep the kid in school.

Please note that I'm kind of feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place with this stuff. 
No, I don't want to be paying people to 'not commit crimes'.  But I also think that we need to be fiscally responsible - and if paying them is the cheapest option, then paying them makes sense.  We just have to be careful of slippery slopes.

For example, if you make it so that a baby-momma doesn't get paid unless her offspring are not only in school, but getting good grades, she's going to suddenly be a lot more interested in their school performance.

[Ben]

Please note that I'm kind of feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place with this stuff.  
No, I don't want to be paying people to 'not commit crimes'.  But I also think that we need to be fiscally responsible - and if paying them is the cheapest option, then paying them makes sense.  We just have to be careful of slippery slopes.

For example, if you make it so that a baby-momma doesn't get paid unless her offspring are not only in school, but getting good grades, she's going to suddenly be a lot more interested in their school performance.

I'd be less in a huff about it if instead of paying them $9K/year to do therapy and not commit crime, that all that money would be used to give them some kind of "job start" and not commit crime.

I recognize that it can be hard for somebody that has done time to get a job, so I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of program that gets people back in the job market (vs welfare) via either private employers willing to take a chance, or else a tier of govt hiring them in some capacity - like road dept shovel guys or other "roustabout" type work, office gopher, etc.

As long as the jobs were temporary (like a year) and they did a good job, they would have a reference and something besides "jail" to put on the "previous employment" part of a job application as they moved back into the normal workforce. And if the work is dirty or tough or boring, tough. I started out as an oil field roustabout and did dirty work without having committed any crimes. :)

I know programs like this have existed in the past, at least where an employer would get some incentive to hire an ex-con. I have no idea of the success rate.

[brimic]

If leftist *expletive deleted*it holes want to pay danegeld to the barbarians they nurture, I'm actually ok with it- so long as it isn't my money.

[Firethorn]

I'd be less in a huff about it if instead of paying them $9K/year to do therapy and not commit crime, that all that money would be used to give them some kind of "job start" and not commit crime.

Good point.  'Employed' is a big counter-indicator to crime, though not perfect.

I know programs like this have existed in the past, at least where an employer would get some incentive to hire an ex-con. I have no idea of the success rate.

From what I remember, it drops the chances of re-offense substantially, but not perfectly, though it can be expensive at times, it's still cheaper than tossing somebody back in prison.

[KD5NRH]

I'd be less in a huff about it if instead of paying them $9K/year to do therapy and not commit crime, that all that money would be used to give them some kind of "job start" and not commit crime.

This.  How about instead of cracking down with fines and such on unlicensed taco stands, handymen, etc., put the money into a fund that helps them get licensed?  If somebody is making a legit living self employed in a field like that, they're not going to have any time left to get in trouble.  When they do take a day off, it's going to be to go enjoy a well earned vacation where the worst they're likely to do is get drunk and wake up with someone they'll regret.

[makattak]

This.  How about instead of cracking down with fines and such on unlicensed taco stands, handymen, etc., put the money into a fund that helps them get licensed?  If somebody is making a legit living self employed in a field like that, they're not going to have any time left to get in trouble.  When they do take a day off, it's going to be to go enjoy a well earned vacation where the worst they're likely to do is get drunk and wake up with someone they'll regret.

Yeah...

You know the purpose of licensing is to artificially decrease supply in order to protect the existing firms, right?

They won't be undoing that situation.

[brimic]

This.  How about instead of cracking down with fines and such on unlicensed taco stands, handymen, etc., put the money into a fund that helps them get licensed?  If somebody is making a legit living self employed in a field like that, they're not going to have any time left to get in trouble.  When they do take a day off, it's going to be to go enjoy a well earned vacation where the worst they're likely to do is get drunk and wake up with someone they'll regret.

So give them an unfair advantage over the guy who has never done anything wrong in his life but has to pay for his training and licensing himself?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's about taking care of the cousins. Both by getting them a check as well as creating another agency with feather bed jobs and corruption

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[KD5NRH]

So give them an unfair advantage over the guy who has never done anything wrong in his life but has to pay for his training and licensing himself?

I'd limit the training to people who are already competent in the basic service or product offered, but need regulatory compliance training; food safety, etc.  Then make some form of it available to anyone who wants to use it individually.  (Don't want to have the state taking over Taco Bell's training for free, but give the local sidewalk burger cook a free one-time class series.)

[brimic]

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2015/03/convicts-learn-new-trades-late-atnight-at-matc.html

The above story was in the paper awhile back- there was quite a few pissed off people over it with the state (WI Taxpayers) picking up the tab to train convicts to be machinists for the exact reasons in my last post.

[Jocassee]

Please note that I'm kind of feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place with this stuff. 
No, I don't want to be paying people to 'not commit crimes'.  But I also think that we need to be fiscally responsible - and if paying them is the cheapest option, then paying them makes sense.  We just have to be careful of slippery slopes.

I have some bad news bud. We're already way the f*ck down on that slippery slope.

I cannot support paying someone to stay out of trouble under any circumstances. IMO the only reason we are in this mess is because the USG and various state programs have been funding the nearly-unlimited reproduction of anti-social felons for going on 60 years, and it won't end until the burning times come, if they ever do.

Same goes for keeping kids in school or get good grades. The kind of people you're paying to do this aren't going to be able to get ahead that way, regardless, or if some of them do, the rate of return will be so ridiculous that it would be better to simply hire more and better teachers, which have a better chance of impacting those young lives anyways.

If I sound jaded, it's because we live and my wife teaches in a meth hotspot.

SMOD 2016. That is all.

[Firethorn]

So give them an unfair advantage over the guy who has never done anything wrong in his life but has to pay for his training and licensing himself?

How much training and licensing is actually needed?  Consider that it's illegal in multiple states to commercially braid hair without a cosmetology license, which in some of said states takes about a year to earn, and covers ZERO braiding.  With said license, the person can do all sorts of stuff - cut, color, and perm hair.  Shave, do pedicures and manicures, apply chemical tans, facials, etc...  All that stuff is in the training.  But braiding hair isn't.

Now, a class on how to avoid transmitting hair-based pests and diseases?  How to recognize them, refuse service, and direct them to medical treatment?  That might be worth it, but would only(I estimate) take a day or two.

IE:  You see jumping critters, you kick the customer out with directions to get the treatment done.  You keep your combs/brushes in the blue water.  Wash your hands between customers.  Etc...

[dogmush]

I'd be less in a huff about it if instead of paying them $9K/year to do therapy and not commit crime, that all that money would be used to give them some kind of "job start" and not commit crime.

I recognize that it can be hard for somebody that has done time to get a job, so I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of program that gets people back in the job market (vs welfare) via either private employers willing to take a chance, or else a tier of govt hiring them in some capacity - like road dept shovel guys or other "roustabout" type work, office gopher, etc.

As long as the jobs were temporary (like a year) and they did a good job, they would have a reference and something besides "jail" to put on the "previous employment" part of a job application as they moved back into the normal workforce. And if the work is dirty or tough or boring, tough. I started out as an oil field roustabout and did dirty work without having committed any crimes. :)

I know programs like this have existed in the past, at least where an employer would get some incentive to hire an ex-con. I have no idea of the success rate.

You seem to be under the impression that most felons WANT a job.  This is not the case.

Most wouldn't take a job if one was given to them.  Much less attend training for one.  There are many 'hoods where sinking so low that you have to get a legal job is seen as failure.

[Jamisjockey]

Is that like protection money?

Like?  I'd say yes.  Yes it is.

[KD5NRH]

You seem to be under the impression that most felons WANT a job.  This is not the case.

Then cut off their welfare, crack down on the true malum in se crimes, and kick the single-cig dealers and at-home-not-driving pot smokers out of prison to make room to keep the real criminals.  Commissary funds to be earned by actual work.  Outside contributions only allowed to match, not exceed earnings.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You seem to be under the impression that most felons WANT a job.  This is not the case.

Most wouldn't take a job if one was given to them.  Much less attend training for one.  There are many 'hoods where sinking so low that you have to get a legal job is seen as failure.

Too much truth

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Ben]

You seem to be under the impression that most felons WANT a job.  This is not the case.

Most wouldn't take a job if one was given to them.  Much less attend training for one.  There are many 'hoods where sinking so low that you have to get a legal job is seen as failure.

Oh, I recognize that the criminal demographic of "made a stupid mistake and paid for it" is MUCH smaller than people who basically do crime and/or welfare for a living. I just figured that we know they're giving out the money regardless, so I would rather see a "work for it" stipulation versus a straight bribe. I'm sure that a good portion would refuse the benefit if work was involved, but at least then they're theoretically taking $9K less of my tax money.

I do believe there is a small and sincere segment of people who committed a crime, very much regretted it, paid the price, and only wish they could put it behind them and start over again. It would be nice if we could identify and target them with this kind of thing (the work, not the handout). Also say, the poor schmuck who got caught in the wrong state with a loaded gun in his car, lost his job, and did a year in the state pen for something that shouldn't be a crime. He's gotta put "jail" on his resume too.

[Boomhauer]

I have some bad news bud. We're already way the f*ck down on that slippery slope.

I cannot support paying someone to stay out of trouble under any circumstances. IMO the only reason we are in this mess is because the USG and various state programs have been funding the nearly-unlimited reproduction of anti-social felons for going on 60 years, and it won't end until the burning times come, if they ever do.

Same goes for keeping kids in school or get good grades. The kind of people you're paying to do this aren't going to be able to get ahead that way, regardless, or if some of them do, the rate of return will be so ridiculous that it would be better to simply hire more and better teachers, which have a better chance of impacting those young lives anyways.

If I sound jaded, it's because we live and my wife teaches in a meth hotspot.

SMOD 2016. That is all.

This is the truth. The starry eyed liberals who think that the criminals can be "reformed" and "encouraged" with all these schemes are *expletive deleted*ing idiots.

[KD5NRH]

This is the truth. The starry eyed liberals who think that the criminals can be "reformed" and "encouraged" with all these schemes are *expletive deleted*ing idiots.

As has been said, some few can, and people are always going to throw money at the possibility.  Personally, I'd rather give as much of it as possible to those few, and let the others starve.

How many small-time troublemakers got the "jail or enlist" option back in the day and came out the other side of it as productive members of society?  Yet looking at it from certain perspectives, it's easy to see how a few small screwups leave one in a situation where the simplest way to keep going is to progress to bigger screwups.  Eliminate that for the ones who want to quit screwing up, effectively as a one-time option.  Reduce and/or counteract the stigma of short sentences with work and/or work release programs that can be listed on the resume as simply working for whatever state agency they benefited, ("janitor at the college for a summer," "maintenance at the highway department") and let most misdemeanors be semi-sealed after a certain period without recidivism.  (Effectively, sealed to anyone outside LE/military running a background check. Is it ever really relevant to a potential employer that you got picked up in a couple of bar fights more than a decade ago if you haven't made a habit of it since then?)

[brimic]

This is the truth. The starry eyed liberals who think that the criminals can be "reformed" and "encouraged" with all these schemes are *expletive deleted*ing idiots.

Liberals are going to spend money foolishly anyway. Its just one more line item of pandering they will have to fight over in their budgets- "Do we take money out of the 'free needles for AIDS junkies' or the '3K free daycare program' to pay Jaquandra and Travone to delay their carjacking and murder plans for another year?
 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The ones who really wanna change? Will do it with or without   help. The missing ingredient in the failures is the "want to".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk