World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
The BREATHE Act: what we're dealing with in the US
date
newest »
newest »
Not a chance of it passing - it would not pass in so called socialist Europe either
I think that I'm going to see a lot more about this in the coming months.Mostly from grateful Republicans.
I've said it before. Elections are won by claiming the middle ground and pushing your opponent to the fringe.
I wouldn't dismiss it altogether. I refer only to your digest. Clearly, many provisions are naive, broadly unacceptable and won't get traction with most of the lawmakers.. Some proposals make sense or at least deserve considering, testing or study
I agree with Nik that some of those items do need to be addressed. For instance, I am fairly knowledgeable about civil forfeiture. The original premise of getting the rich headpins' houses, boat, and airplanes makes sense. But it is used for every day people who can't afford a lawyer to fight it and the government can take their property and NEVER charge them with any crime. The are police departments who budget in the money they will get from civil forfeitures. Those funds are split with the feds. It gives the "agency" an incentive to take assets on suspicion without ever having to prove any crime. Notice, it is called CIVIL, not criminal, forfeiture. It is completely against what our justice system was based on.
Mandatory minimum sentences started in the 90s as part of the tough on crime. It's purpose was to stop judges from having decisions that were all over the place. The outcome has been that the prosecutors just change the charges to fit a sentence they want, and that has been proven to be longer sentences for crimes for non-white Americans.
I also agree with Graeme - that American really want a candidate that will be middle of the road.
I agree with your points, Lizzie, which address some of the propositions of this bill. I'm worried about some of the others.Which do you guys think are worthy of "considering, testing, or study"?
I'm getting into deep waters here, but I saw a woman on the news the other day say that her neighborhood wanted no police presence at all. What would result from that, I wonder?
Scout wrote: "I agree with your points, Lizzie, which address some of the propositions of this bill. I'm worried about some of the others.Which do you guys think are worthy of "considering, testing, or study"?"
I think a lot of what is listed really boils down to criminal law reform, which is desperately needed, not necessarily in the way listed.
A community without any law enforcement is not the answer. Changing how they operate is. I don't think they are only a few cops who do bad things. Without any law enforcement, we will have chaos.
That bill is really complex. I would think that there are enormous requirements for criminal law reform in the US - and also how police forces are managed and trained.
As an outsider looking in, there seem to be incredible numbers of ways the police are managed. And they range from election of some police or law enforcement officers right up to rigorously trained and organised police. But they all seem to operate under different codes and laws.
What is apparent from US coverage is the lack of consent for policing in some areas. In general in the UK the police are very much us. They are not an outsider group coming into an area to police like an invading army. I know this is not always clear especially in large cities. This may be a nostalgic view of a bobby walking the beat, and we are nowhere near perfect but there is a whole approach and attitude piece missing that I have seen in the media coverage and phone footage
Scout wrote: "Which do you guys think are worthy of "considering, testing, or study"?"For example:
If as Lizzie mentions civil forfeiture results in requisition of private property and it doesn't return to the owner, even if charges aren't pressed, unless s/he involves a lawyer or need to undertake relatively complicated procedures, then it certainly needs to be changed.
"Pilot programs for universal basic income" is interesting. I say corona has already started the pilot. The unemployment soared and many states fund unemployed and closed businesses. Can be viewed as universal income, aimed at enabling people to survive the calamity.
Also "environmental justice" sounds progressive, although should be checked what exactly is meant under such a noble title..
Lizzie wrote: "I also agree with Graeme - that American really want a candidate that will be middle of the road...."It's also how a politician/party can achieve a sufficiently broad mandate to make actual governing easier.
However, for some years now, every candidate seems to be a polarizing figure.
The candidates are responding to the electorate, which is surely polarized, so you can't really blame the politicians. They do what they do to win votes.
What do you think about these two items in the bill?Divesting from agencies like the DEA and ICE as well as moving federal resources away from incarceration and policing
Eliminate ankle monitors
Can't agree with either. Ankle monitors keep people out of prison allowing them to work and look after their families - surely better than incarceration
Scout wrote: "What do you think about these two items in the bill?Divesting from agencies like the DEA and ICE as well as moving federal resources away from incarceration and policing
Eliminate ankle monitors"
Doesn't the DEA focus on international trade and major players within the US? All these unfair and excessive charges we keep hearing about fall into the realm of local law enforcement. If we eliminate the DEA, we're basically giving the foreign cartels carte blanche to set up operation within our borders.
And ankle monitors...isn't this supposed to be the alternative to keeping low-level offenders in jail while they await trial?
Philip wrote: "Can't agree with either. Ankle monitors keep people out of prison allowing them to work and look after their families - surely better than incarceration"We could always start instituting explosive collars - ala 'Running Man'
REF: (WARNING GRAPHIC EXPLODING DECAPITATION): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbvX3...
Someone, somewhere probably has a real life working model just waiting for the opportunity to make a
I wonder what a patent search would turn up?
Who owns the IP?
Why a DEA? Why not use the FBI. Drug enforcement, mafia, and all those related issues were part of their bailiwick in the past. Why ICE? We could extend Border Patrol's reach past the 100 miles inland to deal with immigration arrests.
In any of those situations, I think we need to separate local police from those agencies. Those agencies should deal with their specific issues and police should be about the community.
I saw something on Netflix the other day; a comedian who if of Indian/Muslim descent who is a comedian, but the show makes very good and informative points about issues. There was an episode on police and what can be done to fix the problems. He made some excellent points. (It's not on my watch list, a rollover when I was trying to sleep so if I need to find it or relate the issues he presented, let me know and I will search my history and look for it.)
There is a You tube going around with some advisors and groups of questions - they run a race with competitors from all races and backgrounds 100 of them based on USA demographics. Questions like did you go to private school or have access to private tuition or filed trips and holidays abroad. An answer would move forward and back the 100m race distance as a head start. Race started and not surprisingly the head starters both sexes had less than half distance to win - a very good learning point - will try and find link
Ok Graeme, thanks for that :-)I'm going to say something that will be controversial, but it's something I've decided is worth talking about.
I saw a black woman last week say that her neighborhood doesn't want police there. So I started thinking about that, about how all that money diverted from police to black communities would be spent if they didn't want police there. How would they maintain order? Because that has to be done, right? Why would they not want police? Then I thought, maybe they want to have their own police. Their own independent police force, funded by the city, and their own independent black community (they don't want city police there). And then I remembered reading years ago about Louis Farrakhan and his idea of a separate state, a separate nation for Black Americans.
Here's a recent 2019 article: https://www.foxnews.com/us/louis-farr...
So now when I see defunding of police departments and funds funneled into black communities, this is what I think about.
Scout wrote: "....a separate nation for Black Americans..."Blaxit? If put on referendum, would you support?
A default of heterogeneity would be a separation into homogeneous communities aka "reservations". The country can become a semi-confederation, based on ethnicities, so instead of convincing North Dakota or Hawaii, for example, politicians would need to address specific communities :)
The last "Blaxit" was the Back to Africa Movement in which we basically created Liberia and Sierra Leone...I can feel Santayana smirking.
Nik, apt term, Blaxit, and maybe one we'll be seeing before long. And homogeneous communities is exactly what Farrakhan has been proposing for years. I'll be watching closely what the communities who are receiving the money from defunding police actually do with it. If they don't want a police presence, how to keep order then? And who's going to be in charge of dispersing these funds? There will have to be some kind of structure separate from city councils if these communities want to be autonomous and handle their own problems, but what will it be? I haven't seen any info regarding that.
Is there any actual de-funding rather than calls for it. Budget proposals or actual budget cuts and from those who actually hold coffers of treasury bills. I presume the various levels of government in USA have not changed and civil servant treasury or finance officials have no new direction. i.e. is this all hype for yet another news story which both sides can throw around?
The trouble is - it sounds like Apartheid to me.
There is actual defunding. Major cities have begun defunding police: Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Salt Lake City, Norman Oklahoma, Hartford Connecticut, Baltimore Maryland, Portland Oregon.https://cdllife.com/2020/these-8-citi...
And, yes, Farrakhan's ideas sound like apartheid. This is quoted from the website https://news.amomama.com/132468-louis..."Minister Louis Farrakhan, also known as Louis X, is a Black nationalist and leader of the religious group Nation of Islam who has created controversy with his comments.
Back in 2015, he was in an interview with Rock Newman on his show wherein he talked about why Black people should “separate” from America. His words were so debatable that the clip resurfaced on Instagram earlier this month.
During the show, Newman asked the minister if his or the Nation of Islam’s goal was to establish a separate state for only Black people, to what Farrakhan responded that it was not just his but God’s purpose.
Some of these things sound fairly reasonable, others I'm a little bit more iffy about.
Scout wrote: "There is actual defunding. Major cities have begun defunding police: Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Salt Lake City, Norman Oklahoma, Hartford Connecticut, Baltimore Maryland, Portland Ore..."Hmm - budget cuts happen all the time and article also shows plans for 4 to go up. In the 8 to go down only La smaller number had actually voted to do so- given size of spend some look long overdue.
UKs biggest police force The Met for London (which also has several National Crime responsibilities) police budget is £3.3bn approx $4bn. The next biggest Greater Manchester is £440m. Perhaps the US has too many police forces? All those admin staff, offices etc add up.
Involved in a consultancy piece several years ago and UK would have saved billions if reorganised to fewer force structures whilst keeping frontline numbers the same.
UK has 43 in England and Wales, 5 or 1 in Scotland depending on how you count and 1 in Northern Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
Interesting comparison if you want to see what a police state means in terms of numbers
It's so clear to me that the money that's been defunded from police and allocated to black communities that don't want a police presence will be used in part to fund their own enforcement agencies. No community can survive without someone to enforce the laws, or anarchy will ensue. Do these communities want anarchy? Or their own state within a state? Just a thought.
I think if, when talking about black communities, you're referring specifically to low income communities where a lot of the confrontations are happening, the only ones who really want the police gone are the criminals who are taking advantage of the conditions in these neighborhoods to set up shop. Most of the people have negative interactions at time, and wish the cops would tone things down a bit, but they do not want the cops gone completely, because that would mean the gangs flood in more than ever, drug dealers start freely operation on every corner, and drive-bys and other shootings skyrocket. A lot of these people genuinely want the streets to be safe for their children. They don't want their kids getting snuffed out by a stray bullet before they ever graduate.
I'd like to provide some info about what the far left wing of the Democrats (including Bernie) is proposing. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), U.S. Representative for New York, and an influential member of the far left, proposes police defunding, abolishing ICE, and closing prisons.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio...
I believe that defunding police and diverting funds to community resources isn't logical. Without police, citizens are left to fend for themselves. Ask the liberal mayor of Chicago, who called the police to defend her home from protesters.
And doing away with ICE, I don't see any way to do that without opening the borders.
Finally, I can see AOC's point that prisons are being used to house the mentally ill and serve as housing for the homeless and drug-addicted. BUT, when asked what should be done with violent criminals, she's wishy washy: "Our lawmaking process means we come to solutions together." She doesn't address the issue with specific solutions, just says prisons should be closed.
Do these proposals - ones that Biden must embrace if he wants the super liberal vote - make practical sense? Bernie has said on TV to his supporters that they just have to get Biden elected and then they'll get what they want. Biden will say anything to get his moderate base to vote for him, but what do you think will happen once he's elected?
Hypothetically, - let's say that AOC get's her wish and there is a landslide Democrat victory in November. Let's say further that Biden retires gracefully 6 months later due to poor health.Harris becomes president - a person with a history of tough as nails approach to crime. Does she reverse course 100% and open the prisons?
Prisons are a multi-$Billion dollar industry - do they have lobbyists? Just because the radical left wants something doesn't mean the political establishment will give it to them ... but, let's extend the hypothesis.
Harris does reverse course. The police and prisons are both radically defunded. The police are replaced by unarmed social workers... at the same time that hardened criminals are released into the general community and given a universal basic income (because people only do crime because they are poor...).
The big winners in this will be private security companies who will make a fortune protecting those who can pay.
Those who can't afford the private security will have to organise local militias...
Those who are even further down the food chain will go vigilante.
I also see a business opportunity for the trafficking of college educated social workers from the US into the current world wide slave market. I'm sure someone would take up the easy pickings... (esp since, without ICE, your borders will be as porous as Swiss cheese for the human traffickers...)
Scout wrote: "It's so clear to me that the money that's been defunded from police and allocated to black communities that don't want a police presence will be used in part to fund their own enforcement agencies...."Isn't burning and looting the current business model? (Not very sustainable of course...)
The videos of police unwarranted violence keep coming up. Not sure the original problem is dealt with
Police brutality is a perennial problem.The key issue is how to enforce appropriate checks an balances on the enforcers...
"Who guards the guardians?"
Right, Nik. The original problem isn't being dealt with because peaceful demonstrations have been hijacked by violent groups who riot, burn, and destroy the property of the very people who support the police and depend on their protection. There are two factions at work here: those who want police reform and those who want anarchy. Every thinking person I know wants police reform; no one I know wants to defund police. There's an element in our country that wants to tear down everything, that wants anarchy. The Democrats seem to be supporting them. Trump says no way.
Graeme, Message 34 is an interesting and scary scenario, although you're probably not serious. I have an active imagination, though, and I can envision life with radical Democrats in charge as being pretty scary.
Graeme - I am assuming your comment on the prison industry having lobbyists was factitious. We have 3 large private prison companies in America who pour huge amounts of monies into not only keeping their fingers in the pie from prisons through release (ankle-bracelets to halfway houses), they are actively involved in keeping the tough on crime laws intact. They fight any attempts by states to legislate marijuana use, decriminalize addiction issues, and reduce sentences for small amounts of drugs. Add in the police from city to federal levels who gain huge dollars from their ability to arbitrarily take personal and real property based only on allegations. The result has been there is no incentive for the justice system reforms that are needed on so many levels and there are incentives to keep it all the way it has been and pocket the cash. I have watched multiple attempts to change the laws at the state and federal levels with so little success. No, those proposed changes do not involve opening the doors and letting out violent criminals. Most are thought out attempts to lessen drug crimes. Possession can result in more time than rape and murder. And repeat drug offenders who are users cost taxpayers more to warehouse repeatedly than treatment.
Scout - I wish I could believe that there are "thinking" people who want to change these things, but, my experiences and research are different. Sadly, there are many people who still believe tough on crime is the way to go, not realizing how everyone from the police through the prosecutors through the private prison companies are using them for profit to their careers and their bottom lines.
It has been the Democrats who are saying to the people it needs to change and presenting potential legislation rather than the Republicans. I don't think either party thinks defunding the police is the answer. But, the police and the jailers do need to be held accountable and our usual societal attitude of the police must be right is not realistic. Our attitude of voting for prosecutors based on conviction records compounds the problem. There needs to be change and the system declines to address it and has done so for years. The "thinking" people have failed to force the issue. Now we have too many unthinking people proposing crazy stuff and I agree that others are using what would be peaceful protests.
I just don't think it's a party division as much as it's an economic division, which also makes it a racial issue. Even now, after all the craziness in multiple states, the police seem to continue their abuse of power. No, not all police. But the ones who have been getting away with it would not have been able to do so, especially multiple times, unless the "good" cops, prosecutors, and politicians were allowing them to get away with it.
Scout wrote: "Graeme, Message 34 is an interesting and scary scenario, although you're probably not serious. I have an active imagination, though, and I can envision life with radical Democrats in charge as bein..."By definition, I'm a 'What If?' kinda guy.
Lizzie wrote: "Graeme - I am assuming your comment on the prison industry having lobbyists was factitious. We have 3 large private prison companies in America who pour huge amounts of monies into not only keeping..."Yes, Lizzie, a rhetorical question, as I assume they do 'in fact,' have lobbyists and actively lobby the legislative and executive branches of the US government (at Federal and State level).
Lizzie wrote: "The result has been there is no incentive for the justice system reforms that are needed on so many levels and there are incentives to keep it all the way it has been and pocket the cash...."I believe that it is a well understood principal that if people can make money (specifically profits) from an activity, then you'll get more of it and it will persist.
The incarceration industry pays.
Noting that Australia also has private prisons operated by the same US companies such as SERCO.
Noting that SERCO is close to the top of my 'List of Awful Companies,' - They are a classic for preaching high values while getting their grubby hands on whatever money can be gleaned from the dirtiest activities on the planet. (And also, from direct experience inheriting one of their messes - incompetent.)
I am totally against the "private prison industry". Punishment should be a state function only. I have done plenty of reading on private prisons and while I will not call them evil, I can see it on the horizon.As for AOC and her ideas, I am no fan. Sure let us defund the police, then what? We already see it happening. Crime soars.
There is a history of how the United States ended up where we are now with crime and punishment. It did not happen in a vacuum and that matters. It needs to be understood why it was put into place because that history matters. Notice how she does not address any of why it happened, but only grinding the axe because it is good politics for her.
The one I do agree with her is the asset forfeiture because it has been abused badly. And yes, it is used against the poor far too frequently. It should not be used ever unless someone is convicted. Asset forfeiture is a civil matter with a far lower standard and that is truly unfair.
Very thoughtful posts. Thanks for addressing the concerns of many people here. I wonder how many voters in this country have any understanding of what the far left is proposing, and I include Kamala Harris in the far left. I'm not sure she's going to help Biden win the election.Abolishing ICE, defunding police, and doing away with prisons just doesn't make sense unless you want chaos, which I honestly think a faction of the left, like ANTIFA, would like to see.
Lizzie, I'd like to see people with drug problems and mental problems sentenced - not to prison - but to mandatory rehabilitation programs. What do you think?
Something I've seen on the news lately is groups of young people approaching people who are dining outdoors at restaurants, sometime inside restaurants. Here's a link: apprhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSnTT...
It's scary to watch. BLM supporters approach diners in groups with their fists up and intimidate people into raising their fists in solidarity, yelling in their faces. The people are obviously afraid, which I would be. How is this okay? It looks like assault to me.
There's also a new book out by Vicky Osterweil called In Defense of Looting. What do you think?
Scout wrote: "Very thoughtful posts. Thanks for addressing the concerns of many people here. ... Lizzie, I'd like to see people with drug problems and mental problems sentenced - not to prison - but to mandatory rehabilitation programs. What do you think?."I think it needs to happen. 90% of those who need rehab do not receive it. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/....
I also think we need to recognize that the medical and psychological fields do not have a "cure", 85% are using drugs again within a year. 2/3 are using within 6 weeks. After a year, half will relapse. After 5 years, there is only a 15% chance of relapse. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl...
Can you imagine any program that will continue with outpatient treatment, often requiring both medical and psychological support for 5 years. Our health insurance companies don't provide that kind of treatment. Worse, our society still blames the user and not the disease, which makes the addict less likely to seek immediate help as soon as they fall off the wagon.
I find it interesting to note that the recidivism rates for prison are about the same. Coincidence? or correlation to addiction?
Section 1: Divesting from police
Divesting from agencies like the DEA and ICE as well as moving federal resources away from incarceration and policing
Eliminate ankle monitors
End civil asset forfeiture
End life sentences and mandatory minimum sentences
Develop a "time-bound plan to close all federal prisons and immigration detention centers"
Decriminalize and retroactively expunge both state and federal drug offenses
Section 2: Community safety
Offer a 50 percent federal match for projected savings when states and/or local jurisdictions close detention facilities, including jails
End cooperation with immigration authorities
Ban "pretextual" police stops and searches, even where police obtain consent.
Abolish police gang databases, as well as armed cops and metal detectors in school
Forgive all outstanding court debt
Tie state grants to intervention programs that involve specialists other than police responding to some 911 calls
Section 3: Allocating new money
Create a plan to close youth detention centers
Pilot programs for universal basic income
Develop curricula that examine the political, economic, and social impacts of colonialism, native genocide, and slavery
Create tools to promote environmental justice, including by subsidizing "community" energy solutions
Provide lifetime education for illegal immigrants and the currently incarcerated
Eliminate state laws that bar formerly incarcerated people from serving as guardian for their own children or others in their community
Section 4: Holding officials accountable
Pass the Commission to Study Reparation Proposal for African-Americans Act and establish commissions to "design reparations" for mass incarceration to include those caught up in the War on Drugs, border and police violence and the "systemic violation of the U.S. Government’s treaty obligations to Tribal nations"
Enfranchise all incarcerated individuals
Guarantee private right of action for recovering damages when a federal official has committed a constitutional violation
Allowing local and state resident voting for illegal immigrants
What do you guys think?