3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.gopusa.com/dc-bill-would-pay-people-stipends-not-to-commit-crimes/ The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.gopusa.com/dc-bill-would-pay-people-stipends-not-to-commit-crimes/ The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there. A reverse protection racket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I can undercut them............ I won't commit the crime for HALF the money ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 I can undercut them............ I won't commit the crime for HALF the money ! I won't do it for half the money but I'll not commit 10 crimes for 5 times the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So what happens if the stipend for not committing crimes does not adjust for inflation? Will there be riots demanding more money for not committing crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Isn't that what welfare already is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 win win for tax payers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 win win for tax payers! So, you think it is a good idea to bribe people so that they don't commit a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So, you think it is a good idea to bribe people so that they don't commit a crime? It's pragmatic, cost effective and lowers crime, what's not to like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Been paying farmers not to grow crops...letting corporations off the hook for taxes to relocate to a certain geography, or not to go offshore...so why the heck not this. Can't wait to see what's next. As a practical matter, the cost of arresting, prosecuting, and then housing criminals in correctional institutions is pretty expensive. So if this costs less, and crime is reduced, much as it goes against the grain it's a pretty creative solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 Been paying farmers not to grow crops...letting corporations off the hook for taxes to relocate to a certain geography, or not to go offshore...so why the heck not this. Can't wait to see what's next. As a practical matter, the cost of arresting, prosecuting, and then housing criminals in correctional institutions is pretty expensive. So if this costs less, and crime is reduced, much as it goes against the grain it's a pretty creative solution. There's a reason it "goes against the grain". I suppose that you would have been a proponent of paying ransom to the Barbary Pirates too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Been paying farmers not to grow crops...letting corporations off the hook for taxes to relocate to a certain geography, or not to go offshore...so why the heck not this. Can't wait to see what's next. As a practical matter, the cost of arresting, prosecuting, and then housing criminals in correctional institutions is pretty expensive. So if this costs less, and crime is reduced, much as it goes against the grain it's a pretty creative solution. I know a few Italian-American gentlemen who are wondering why it wasn't "creative" when they did it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Been paying farmers not to grow crops...letting corporations off the hook for taxes to relocate to a certain geography, or not to go offshore...so why the heck not this. Can't wait to see what's next. As a practical matter, the cost of arresting, prosecuting, and then housing criminals in correctional institutions is pretty expensive. So if this costs less, and crime is reduced, much as it goes against the grain it's a pretty creative solution. Paying farmers not to grow crops is a macro-economic tool designed to support the price of crop production by disincentivizing decreasing costs because of market saturation in order to assure steady food production so Americans don't starve. It ensures a food supply for the population. Corporations earn the money that they make by bringing goods and services to market that individuals and businesses find value in. The government allowing them to keep more of their own money is in no way comparable to someone being given money that was never theirs in the first place. Paying individuals not to commit crimes is a completely different endeavor. It starts with the baseline that the commission of crimes is economically neutral for the offender, then builds on to that premise that simply being law abiding is actually doing something "over and above" which is worthy of merit and compensation. That's an absurd base premise that has no place in a society of laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Will punishments be more severe if anyone receiving this stipend is caught breaking the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I have no problem with this, because it comes with the condition that they take classes and attend therapy. The government is actually paying people to learn how to be a decent human being (something not taught by their parents.) Of course, they could have just included the condition with their jail sentence, and the amount is ridiculous, but the idea isn't awful. People should be paid for their time (especially if they aren't willing). This is an extension of the idea that "it takes a village government." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 There's a reason it "goes against the grain". I suppose that you would have been a proponent of paying ransom to the Barbary Pirates too? "Why the heck not" isn't support. I think paying people to do what they're supposed to do, or not do what they shouldn't, is repugnant. However as a practical matter, there are always those who do the right thing, and those who don't. If this practice reduces the harm/impact of the bad acts on the good people, I guess it might be worth a try. And it if saves tax money, what the hell. The notion to use monetary incentives to drive behaviour, as well as reward it, is well-established beyond just paying wages in return for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Paying individuals not to commit crimes is a completely different endeavor. It starts with the baseline that the commission of crimes is economically neutral for the offender, then builds on to that premise that simply being law abiding is actually doing something "over and above" which is worthy of merit and compensation. That's an absurd base premise that has no place in a society of laws. But if the ends justify the means, so what? We want results, not a dogmatic and failed approach that sees more people in jail, more crimes committed and higher taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 But if the ends justify the means, so what? We want results, not a dogmatic and failed approach that sees more people in jail, more crimes committed and higher taxes The ends never justify the means. The means justify the ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) But if the ends justify the means, so what? We want results, not a dogmatic and failed approach that sees more people in jail, more crimes committed and higher taxes You've completely devalued the harm done to the moral fiber of a society that creates an entitlement system for those whom simply obey the law by turning crime into an amoral act. Further, you have zero evidence that long term outcomes of such a society are desirable: you are creating a government subsidized institutional protection racket. Edited February 5, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts