Chicago hits 500 murders before 9/1

[tomdalton22]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/us/chicago-homicides-visual-guide/index.html


Detroit, St Louis and New Orleans are still ahead of them per capita.

In the article, the first group mentioned when they ask "Who's to blame?"...they mention the police force.

 

[Sbee]

It's not the fault of the police, though they're not perfect and our laws lead to mass incarceration, people tend to direct their anger in the wrong direction.

If you want to place blame a lot has to go to the Chicago housing authority who thought it was a good idea to push all of the poor black families into the Taylor homes, Horner homes, Cabrini green etc. These were more mixed initially but now it's herding people in substandard housing.

 

[Michchamp]

It's not the fault of the police, though they're not perfect and our laws lead to mass incarceration, people tend to direct their anger in the wrong direction.

If you want to place blame a lot has to go to the Chicago housing authority who thought it was a good idea to push all of the poor black families into the Taylor homes, Horner homes, Cabrini green etc. These were more mixed initially but now it's herding people in substandard housing.

yep. and closing tons of schools in predominantly black neighborhoods didn't help either.

give kids no other option for their future, and then blame them when they turn to dealing drugs and gangbanging by default. say it's a "cultural problem" for "them."

 

[Spartanmack]

define mass incarceration for us because 0.689% of the population doesn't sound like an alarmingly high number.

 

[Gulo Blue]

people tend to direct their anger in the wrong direction.

If people pointed their anger in the right direction, we'd have a war on calories. Protesters lining up at McDonalds with signs that say healthy lives matter. Most of us would have to protest ourselves. I had a McDonalds cheeseburger yesterday. It was very salty and the bun was a bit dried out and I loved every bite. It's not that I don't appreciate good food, but I still love the crap too.

 

[Gulo Blue]

define mass incarceration for us because 0.689% of the population doesn't sound like an alarmingly high number.

0.689% is a lot. It's 1 person for every 54 households. If it's $20-30k to keep a person in prison, that's $33-50 a month per household.

It's 4 times the percentage of what it used to be here and 5 times what the rest of the world has.

 

[Michchamp]

0.689% is a lot. It's 1 person for every 54 households. If it's $20-30k to keep a person in prison, that's $33-50 a month per household.

It's 4 times the percentage of what it used to be here and 5 times what the rest of the world has.

but highly-accomplished sociologist spartanracist doesnt think its a high number, so its not.

 

[Spartanmack]

0.689% is a lot. It's 1 person for every 54 households. If it's $20-30k to keep a person in prison, that's $33-50 a month per household.

It's 4 times the percentage of what it used to be here and 5 times what the rest of the world has.

it's one for every 57 households and it's 1/3 of a basic cable/telephone/internet bill. And while it's 4 times what it used to be, that ignores the benefits like the dramatic reduction in crime that came with tough on crime legislation - there are monetary as well as social benefits to that reduction in crime. The numbers you posted themselves don't speak to what you're getting for $33-50 per month.

Edit: and by this logic, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Haiti, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Yemen, Liberia are all better than most of Europe and Canada.

 

[tomdalton22]

Every household isn't paying the same amount. In this case...you get pretty much what you contribute. If you make a good living you probably live in a nice area with very little crime. You are paying a lot more to keep criminals off the street but you live in a safe area. If you are a poor person you contribute very little or nothing to keep criminals off the street...but they live in your neighborhood.

 

[Spartanmack]

Every household isn't paying the same amount. In this case...you get pretty much what you contribute. If you make a good living you probably live in a nice area with very little crime. You are paying a lot more to keep criminals off the street but you live in a safe area. If you are a poor person you contribute very little or nothing to keep criminals off the street...but they live in your neighborhood.

The thing I find most interesting about these conversations is that people like turd and sbee think the problem is over-policing when what these neighborhoods we're talking about need is more, not less policing. Yes, of course bad cops need to be taken off the street, retrained or whatever, but the problem is not cops, it's criminals and the numbers prove it. Businesses shut down and new ones don't open not because the cops are harassing their customers, it's because it's not safe and not profitable or at least the profits aren't worth the risks of operating in high crime areas. There aren't jobs in those neighborhoods because it's not safe to operate there.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's one for every 57 households and it's 1/3 of a basic cable/telephone/internet bill. And while it's 4 times what it used to be, that ignores the benefits like the dramatic reduction in crime that came with tough on crime legislation - there are monetary as well as social benefits to that reduction in crime. The numbers you posted themselves don't speak to what you're getting for $33-50 per month.

Edit: and by this logic, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Haiti, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Yemen, Liberia are all better than most of Europe and Canada.

Point is, 0.6% is a lot. You might think it's a good idea to lock up a lot of people, but that's a different argument. A third of a data bill is a lot. One for every 54 or 57 houses is a lot. I like to think of things in those terms. If my neighborhood was that big, we'd have to commit resources proportional to locking up one of us. That's more than the HOA dues for the last neighborhood I lived in.

 

[Spartanmack]

Point is, 0.6% is a lot. You might think it's a good idea to lock up a lot of people, but that's a different argument. A third of a data bill is a lot. One for every 54 or 57 houses is a lot. I like to think of things in those terms. If my neighborhood was that big, we'd have to commit resources proportional to locking up one of us. That's more than the HOA dues for the last neighborhood I lived in.

Just because one person thinks its a lot, doesn't mean everyone will agree or that those who don't are wrong.

but I agree there should be a different argument - whether or not you think it's a lot doesn't really matter. The discussion should be focused on whether or not it's the right number, too much or too little. Where we line up with other countries shouldn't be of major concern. If other countries have a system that yields better results, we can talk about that but simply stating that we lock up X times the number of people as Canada isn't meaningful because we lock up a lot more people than countries like Mexico and Honduras too.

 

[Sbee]

If locking up a higher percentage of our populous than any other country isn't a lot, then there's no such thing as a lot.

For this argument, I agree that the police aren't the culprit for the murders in Chicago. I blamed the CHA as the original architect of this situation.

 

[Spartanmack]

If locking up a higher percentage of our populous than any other country isn't a lot, then there's no such thing as a lot.

For this argument, I agree that the police aren't the culprit for the murders in Chicago. I blamed the CHA as the original architect of this situation.

If other countries aren't locking up enough people and what we are doing is more effective at reducing crime rates, then who are you to say it's a lot? And what does it matter if it's a lot? A lot is not the same as too many.

How about putting the lion's share of the blame on the murderers? Maybe the next biggest dose on the absentee fathers? I agree that it was predictable that the social welfare policies you support would crash and burn and be abject failures, but I also think that people are actually responsible for their actions and that as big a failure as the Dem controlled CHA is, they're not to blame for the murders.