The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted • Hacker News Board

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#81

Post by wahern » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:02 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #42

pnw_hazor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prosecutors decide whether to charge. Cops quickly learn that arresting people that will not be charged is a waste of their time. Seattle has a similar policy. Property crimes are not enforced.

If the police really wanted to deal with property crime, they'd go after the pawn shops and the fences, and the scrappers buying stolen copper. No, that wouldn't stop people stealing things for their own use, but it would hit the professional thieves hard.

A robbery ring was recently broken where their M.O. was to ship stolen laptops off to Vietnam.

  https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Fremont-Detectives-Bust-International-Theft-Ring-With-Millions-in-Stolen-Electronics-472047833.html

Perhaps local fences still matter a great deal, but it seems like they're becoming increasingly less important.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#82

Post by rootusrootus » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:03 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #67

ryandrake wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, our society is set up so that once you are labeled a criminal, that label sticks with you for the rest of your life. Many aspects of legitimate law-abiding life, particularly employment and housing, get harder once you’ve been convicted of something, even after you’ve served your time. Every application that asks for your criminal history or “have you ever been convicted” cements this class distinction. If we w…

On the flip-side, however, many average people don't want former criminals in their society, near their kids, etc. How do you separate the ones who actually want to get back on track and live a normal life, and the ones that plan on committing more crimes as soon as they get out? If you were to offer your home as a halfway house or something similar, would you feel safe without any sort of guarantee for your safety?

I would start by drawing a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, since that could be done immediately. Make it so everything less than a felony conviction is not part of a background check. Including arrests, etc. So as long as you've not been convicted of a felony, then you get to say no to all those filter questions on job & housing applications.

Then I would make it a requirement that every state offer a realistic way to have felonies expunged by petition after a certain length of time. Prove you're not a problem, get back to a clean record.

Honestly, there are a lot of people I don't want around me or my kids who haven't been convicted of a crime. It's hardly a perfect filter as it is.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#83

Post by rootusrootus » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: post #35

TomK32 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I though lead paint and lead in gasoline was a good candidate for the blip?

Lead and Roe v Wade are often discussed, but it's one of those issues that's really hard to gain confidence about any particular explanation. It appears likely that both played a role, but to what extent is more difficult to say.

Roe v Wade is pretty far out there, but lead exposure has a lot of decent correlational data from different regions, since it was phased out around the country and around the world at different times.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#84

Post by wahern » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #77

docker_up wrote: post #16

In SF I've seen first-hand groups of youths filling up their backpacks with store items and running off laughing. They don't even run more than a block before slowing down to walk because they know nothing will happen. Thousands of dollars of items are taken but because of the new law where theft under $1000 per person is considered a misdemeanor, nothing happens. I talked with the merchant and she said that the poli…

>groups of youths filling up their backpacks with store items and running off laughing. They don't even run more than a block before slowing down to walk because they know nothing will happen. i'm completely against locking them up and ruining their lives for what in most cases is just a [stupid] fun for them. We do know that the brain of teenager is biologically flawed to correctly estimate risks/consequences of thi…

Except now that maximum penalties are reduced, there's less risk of life-destroying consequences unfairly meted out. Teenagers especially may be less responsive to consequentialist preventive measures (i.e. punishment), but they are responsive to some degree. It's not tenable to argue that an environment of zero punitive consequences won't increase the incidence of crime, especially property crime.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#85

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

jjnoakes wrote: post #58

ryandrake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really need to throw shoplifting kids into prison, which will only serve as a training school for worse crime? Stores have insurance for this kind of loss.

Why are the only two options "do nothing" and "throw them in prison"? Shouldn't there be a middle ground here?

Return or replace the stolen items as restitution. Pay the value of the stolen items as punishment. And since we want poor kids to get the same lesson as rich kids, make them work the value of their punishment off with a real job, like graffiti removal or trash pickup or municipal grounds-keeping or something.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#86

Post by darkmighty » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #67

ryandrake wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, our society is set up so that once you are labeled a criminal, that label sticks with you for the rest of your life. Many aspects of legitimate law-abiding life, particularly employment and housing, get harder once you’ve been convicted of something, even after you’ve served your time. Every application that asks for your criminal history or “have you ever been convicted” cements this class distinction. If we w…

On the flip-side, however, many average people don't want former criminals in their society, near their kids, etc. How do you separate the ones who actually want to get back on track and live a normal life, and the ones that plan on committing more crimes as soon as they get out? If you were to offer your home as a halfway house or something similar, would you feel safe without any sort of guarantee for your safety?

Set a criminal record expiration date depending on crime? Small crimes would expire quickly (but get refreshed/increased if you commit another small crime), more serious crimes would take longer to expire. Some study would be necessary on crime rate vs. time since last detention leave -- the principle being employers shouldn't need to unknowingly bear above a threshold of risk on their property/life (you need to balance doing good to ex-cons and protecting society).

Even better might be spending directly on ex-cons to better integrate them back into society (education, training, etc), instead of spending copious amounts on detention, security, punishment. The resulting decrease in recidivism probability is likely well worth it in most cases.

Also programs for locating at-risk for crime individuals and making sure they have better alternatives, to lower crime rate in first place.

The main problem is I'm quite skeptical that you could consider most criminals as "rational"/well informed of their possibilities and consequences of choices. Therefore increasing punishment probably doesn't change significantly their behavior, only might worsen the outcome once they leave detention in a negatively-reinforcing environment, not to mention consume public resources that could be better employed -- like targeted education clearing the minds of at risk individuals on what are the likely outcomes of criminal life compared to alternatives.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#87

Post by trhway » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:21 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #84

trhway wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>groups of youths filling up their backpacks with store items and running off laughing. They don't even run more than a block before slowing down to walk because they know nothing will happen. i'm completely against locking them up and ruining their lives for what in most cases is just a [stupid] fun for them. We do know that the brain of teenager is biologically flawed to correctly estimate risks/consequences of thi…

Except now that maximum penalties are reduced, there's less risk of life-destroying consequences unfairly meted out. Teenagers especially may be less responsive to consequentialist preventive measures (i.e. punishment), but they are responsive to some degree. It's not tenable to argue that an environment of zero punitive consequences won't increase the incidence of crime, especially property crime.

if you notice, i'm not arguing against punishment. The punishment is a must. The best punishment would teach the violator instead of just punishing per.se.

>Teenagers especially may be less responsive to consequentialist preventive measures (i.e. punishment), but they are responsive to some degree.

Exactly. The issue is that the more immediate/instant punishment works better for teenager mind than the chance of delayed/procedural/etc punishment. The immediate punishment is what helps the forming brain to develop cause/consequences machinery of behavior.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#88

Post by Broken_Hippo » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:30 PM UTC

BowBun wrote: post #67

ryandrake wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, our society is set up so that once you are labeled a criminal, that label sticks with you for the rest of your life. Many aspects of legitimate law-abiding life, particularly employment and housing, get harder once you’ve been convicted of something, even after you’ve served your time. Every application that asks for your criminal history or “have you ever been convicted” cements this class distinction. If we w…

On the flip-side, however, many average people don't want former criminals in their society, near their kids, etc. How do you separate the ones who actually want to get back on track and live a normal life, and the ones that plan on committing more crimes as soon as they get out? If you were to offer your home as a halfway house or something similar, would you feel safe without any sort of guarantee for your safety?

Make sure everyone has the skills and means to survive in the world. Don't expect the public to provide halfway houses, but instead provide that as part of your criminal justice system. If someone commits more crimes, punish them for the crimes and perhaps, take a different approach with the rehabilitation portion of their sentence the second time around.

I would also add that the means bit is rather important. If I was getting out and realized how slim my chances of actually getting a job and supporting myself were, I might plan on doing more crimes. There isn't much incentive not to. On the other hand, if I knew I'd be OK just by going through the program, I'm more likely to do that.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#89

Post by ww520 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:32 PM UTC

docker_up wrote: post #16

In SF I've seen first-hand groups of youths filling up their backpacks with store items and running off laughing. They don't even run more than a block before slowing down to walk because they know nothing will happen. Thousands of dollars of items are taken but because of the new law where theft under $1000 per person is considered a misdemeanor, nothing happens. I talked with the merchant and she said that the poli…

I've witnessed a teenage girl just grabbed a store item on the shelf in Starbucks and ran away. On another instance I've seen the video of a night break-in with a girl just used a hammer to break the glass on the door to open it, came in, and cleaned out the cash register. Yeah, they are very brazen.

Re: The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted

#90

Post by bilbo0s » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:38 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #23

yardie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tough on crime has gone out of style. We had our primaries recently and only a few conservative dinosaurs even mentioned ToC in their voter biography. Most of the candidates running for AD, circuit judge, and other legal offices were drumming up their crime intervention bonafides.

Voter suppression through felony disenfranchisement, however, remains en vogue. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/florida... "In Florida, more than 21 percent of black adults are disenfranchised because of this policy."

Certain states are likely to remain relatively worse places for minorities, particularly blacks, to live. But the system is bent in this manner everywhere, including California. The diffference, of course, is that in Florida the voting populace has collectively decided that they like the way things currently work. Whereas in places like California, the voting populace is deciding for a lot of reasons that they don't like the current situation.