Heads Up, Revival of SB 948.

[Diabolus]

Every Democrat politician has that viewpoint.

Yep, but this guy is especially reprehensible and pushed a lot of anti-police, soft on crime nonsense that never works when he was mayor of Berkeley.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I mean one could argue that even if it was the case that there was overcrowding leading to negative outcomes, the solution is more capacity and not releasing people who are not ready to integrate into society. But, I agree we historically have locked too many people up (mainly for nonviolent drug offenses), and that our system really needs an overhaul to focus on rehabilitation rather than some misplaced desire for revenge/punishment.

I might not always agree with you gramps, but I appreciate your posts and I can’t say I was aware of this case so thanks for expanding my knowledge

It appears they were ultimately successful in reducing prison populations, and with no apparent increase in crime rates:

 

[weaverftw]

It appears they were ultimately successful in reducing prison populations, and with no apparent increase in crime rates:

View attachment 195245

View attachment 195246

While that is a good data point, I would be hesitant to draw conclusions without controlling for confounding variables. Maybe crime rates were going down due to other factors? Did recidivism rates go down in the same period (which would validate the policy) or was it something else reducing crime in the front end?

 

[grandpapeepap]

I mean one could argue that even if it was the case that there was overcrowding leading to negative outcomes, the solution is more capacity and not releasing people who are not ready to integrate into society. But, I agree we historically have locked too many people up (mainly for nonviolent drug offenses), and that our system really needs an overhaul to focus on rehabilitation rather than some misplaced desire for revenge/punishment.

I might not always agree with you gramps, but I appreciate your posts and I can’t say I was aware of this case so thanks for expanding my knowledge

It was a BIG case and its one of the key reasons i felt Harris wasnt fit to be president (aside from other glaring issues) She ignored supreme court orders and was violating peoples constitutionally protected rights. Thats a little side bar about it but i also agree with you, we need to build some more areas for the prisons and not just let people out. But people will cry about taxes of course

 

[grandpapeepap]

While that is a good data point, I would be hesitant to draw conclusions without controlling for confounding variables. Maybe crime rates were going down due to other factors? Did recidivism rates go down in the same period (which would validate the policy) or was it something else reducing crime in the front end?

Removal of lead paint and leaded gasoline helped lower violent crime rate across the board. aside from a small covid tick its been going down for years AND we reduced our prison population. If you see his graph youll notice a LARGE drop right around that case was hitting the courts but they still ignored it

 

[weaverftw]

Removal of lead paint and leaded gasoline helped lower violent crime rate across the board. aside from a small covid tick its been going down for years AND we reduced our prison population. If you see his graph youll notice a LARGE drop right around that case was hitting the courts but they still ignored it

Roe v Wade also has a considerable impact. Don’t tell old school republicans that though.

I’m just saying these things are complex and we have to be careful about what 2 datasets we compare to draw a given conclusion.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Roe v Wade also has a considerable impact. Don’t tell old school republicans that though.

I’m just saying these things are complex and we have to be careful about what 2 datasets we compare to draw a given conclusion.

well depending on what you mean by old school, they didnt care about it cause it was small government fans who didnt think government should be involved in the doctor/patients business. Until the religous folks got super involved in the party

 

[weaverftw]

well depending on what you mean by old school, they didnt care about it cause it was small government fans who didnt think government should be involved in the doctor/patients business. Until the religous folks got super involved in the party

Interesting. I’d not heard that take. Looking back on these events having not lived them, it seemed motivated by religious beliefs, but you bring up an interesting perspective that I wasn’t aware of that warrants looking into.

Old Man +1

 

[grandpapeepap]

Interesting. I’d not heard that take. Looking back on these events having not lived them, it seemed motivated by religious beliefs, but you bring up an interesting perspective that I wasn’t aware of that warrants looking into.

Old Man +1

Check out Barry Goldwaters views on it, an OG conservative

 

[Deleted member 16735]

While that is a good data point, I would be hesitant to draw conclusions without controlling for confounding variables. Maybe crime rates were going down due to other factors? Did recidivism rates go down in the same period (which would validate the policy) or was it something else reducing crime in the front end?

I don't disagree at all, but there seems to be a rampant paranoia on the right that we are "less safe than ever" and that it's 100% due to "soft on crime policy", and yet there are no statistics to show that any of that is true. We have never been safer in California in our lifetimes but if you listen to these people they literally think there is a war going on and they need to be ready to fight it. It's not just pathetic but worrying to a degree. But why should I care enough to correct it though, how does it affect me? The fact that gun rights issues also go hand in hand with insane right wing paranoia hurts Ca gun owners because it's lumped the issue into teams of us vs. them. I don't know anyone in real life who is actually "against guns" but I do know many people who are afraid to go into a shop or a range full of MAGA hats because that shop is quite literally advertising that they hate them. Obviously the reality in California is a bit more nuanced, I've been on a squad with both trans women and a guy wearing a Trump shirt and everything is fine and we all shoot our guns and go home. But ironically the right in California is actively working against their own interests by being so hostile to the fastest growing group of gun owners in the state which is "non-traditional" non-right-wing folks. The bottom line is if people live up to the stereotype of the racist, uneducated hostile gun nut that puts threatening stickers on their cars and pees their pants at any kind of gun safety measure, but then has literally no answer to peoples concerns about gun safety, then they are messaging to the vast majority of the voting public who aren't into guns that the only answer is to restrict guns and magazines and "assault weapons". I just wish the gun community was a lot less F-ing stupid at the end of the day because it's embarassing and counterproductive.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

The Senator that introduced this, Jesse Arreguín, is all about criminal justice reform (e.g. reducing penalties for criminals), and at the same time, makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. We are talking very serious crimes where he introduces legislation to reduce the punishment and/or get more people out of prison sooner.

The best thing I've heard about Arreguin is that he should be focusing on portion control instead of gun control.

 

[weaverftw]

I don't disagree at all, but there seems to be a rampant paranoia on the right that we are "less safe than ever" and that it's 100% due to "soft on crime policy", and yet there are no statistics to show that any of that is true. We have never been safer in California in our lifetimes but if you listen to these people they literally think there is a war going on and they need to be ready to fight it. It's not just pathetic but worrying to a degree. But why should I care enough to correct it though, how does it affect me? The fact that gun rights issues also go hand in hand with insane right wing paranoia hurts Ca gun owners because it's lumped the issue into teams of us vs. them. I don't know anyone in real life who is actually "against guns" but I do know many people who are afraid to go into a shop or a range full of MAGA hats because that shop is quite literally advertising that they hate them. Obviously the reality in California is a bit more nuanced, I've been on a squad with both trans women and a guy wearing a Trump shirt and everything is fine and we all shoot our guns and go home. But ironically the right in California is actively working against their own interests by being so hostile to the fastest growing group of gun owners in the state which is "non-traditional" non-right-wing folks. The bottom line is if people live up to the stereotype of the racist, uneducated hostile gun nut that puts threatening stickers on their cars and pees their pants at any kind of gun safety measure, but then has literally no answer to peoples concerns about gun safety, then they are messaging to the vast majority of the voting public who aren't into guns that the only answer is to restrict guns and magazines and "assault weapons". I just wish the gun community was a lot less F-ing stupid at the end of the day because it's embarassing and counterproductive.

I largely agree with your post but also I think there is a different dynamic in the crime data that leads to the error in thinking. Generally we are safer, but there are some specific places that have seen a big increase in petty crime like theft and those places have very wealthy and influential people, like SF and LA (if you consider that civilization), and those people have loud voices. That skews things in people’s minds as they’re symbolic places.

 

[BontaLicious]

I'm wondering if and how our current FSC's will be considered. Will we be forced to apply for new ones or will they still retain their 5 year validity?
If our current ones are good to go, you can expect everyone and their dog lining up to renew their card in the weeks before the bill is in effect.

 

[chiroken007]

Holy that Roe V Wade statement.. you said the silent part out loud as far as that policy is concerned. On face it’s about “my body my right”. But that has never been the intent.

 

[Deleted member 46499]

It appears they were ultimately successful in reducing prison populations, and with no apparent increase in crime rates:

View attachment 195245

View attachment 195246

View attachment 195246

So what does California consider "Crime" non violent is still crime Ca has skewed numbers to benefit them.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Holy that Roe V Wade statement.. you said the silent part out loud as far as that policy is concerned. On face it’s about “my body my right”. But that has never been the intent.

Can you articulate what you mean? Or are you surprised people who cant/dont want to care for a kid, that those kids end up resorting to criminal behavior due to their circumstances in life?

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

If this passes, and you plan to stop participating in serialized gun purchases when your FSC expires unless you want to spend hundreds to thousands extra for CA CCW; the last day to get your FSC or to renew is End of June 2028.

"This is me at the moment... lol"

 

[weaverftw]

Holy that Roe V Wade statement.. you said the silent part out loud as far as that policy is concerned. On face it’s about “my body my right”. But that has never been the intent.

I mean it’s pretty clear reasoning and the impact has been widely discussed for years (made popular by Freakonomics I think). Fewer kids born into poverty to parents who don’t want them and won’t/can’t provide a stable home life means fewer of those kids getting into trouble and becoming involved with gangs etc

I don’t think that was a major justification for it, as that is mostly ideological for most people, but it’s an obvious side effect

 

[chiroken007]

Can you articulate what you mean? Or are you surprised people who cant/dont want to care for a kid, that those kids end up resorting to criminal behavior due to their circumstances in life?

It depends how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go. If you read about the founders of planned parenthood and their positions/motivations... I will leave that to your own device.

In general though. The statement I was responding to was referring to a reduction of crime rates due to abortion. More kids growing in difficult situations would lead to more crime. FBI data shows single mother households increase likelihood of crime significantly.

Our prison development is based on the demographics and population of 5th graders in at risk communities. Found that out watching the documentary “Waiting for Superman”

 

[grandpapeepap]

It depends how far down the rabbit hole you wanna go. If you read about the founders of planned parenthood and their positions/motivations... I will leave that to your own device.

In general though. The statement I was responding to was referring to a reduction of crime rates due to abortion. More kids growing in difficult situations would lead to more crime. FBI data shows single mother households increase likelihood of crime significantly.

Our prison development is based on the demographics and population of 5th graders in at risk communities. Found that out watching the documentary “Waiting for Superman”

Yeah ive read about the subject in my many years of being alive, Theres more options than just planned parenthood too but you seem to understand how the reduction in crime can appear. Socioeconomic status is a high driver of crime, but back to the original thought on the matter. Do you think government should be involved in medical decisions between doctors and patients?