City pays "protection" money -- homicides and firearms assaults go down

[KyJim]

The city of Richmond, California has been paying what some term "protection money" to young men most likely to be involved in violent crime. Essentially, they go through a mentoring program and, if they cause no problems for six months, get $1,000 per month; maximum is for nine months ($9,000). Proponents say homicides are down by half, as are firearms assaults.

Full story is at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/op...=pl-share&_r=0

There's a condensed story at: http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...to_stay_out_of

Now, when I first saw the headline and started reading, I thought this was simply protection money. But, considering not only the decrease in violent crime, but also the presumed savings in investigative, proprietorialprosecutorial, and incarceration costs, then perhaps this is program that might be worth it. I don't think this is something that would work in a lot of communities but it may work for selected cities.

I'm still a bit on the fence about this. What do you think?

[Banger357]

Preventative measures of that nature really insult my personal sense of justice. There is something that seems very wrong about having to bribe people to not be criminals. However, when the results are so positive it really does make you pay attention and open your mind (in my case, grudgingly) to alternative viewpoints.

I’m majoring in psychology with a minor in criminal justice with the intention of working as a counselor for a prison when I’m out of school. I’ve done a lot of reading on Norway’s prison system, which is focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The prisons look more like nice hotels, the prisoners have a ton of freedom, and instead of locking criminals up and making life suck to convince them not to come back they focus on things like providing educational tools to succeed in their careers and providing positive support to help them want to be “good” people like the rest of the population.

While that really goes against my beliefs that bad behavior needs to be punished, the fact that they have an absolutely miniscule rate of prisoners who reoffend compared to the US does show that what they’re doing works. The program you linked to reminds me a lot of the prison situation. “Hey kid, we’ll give you $9k if you don’t shoot anyone for 9 months” does not seem like a logical course of action for people like me who think you shouldn’t have to be bribed to not become an abhorrent individual, however if it is effective in keeping hoologans from turning into thugs during the impressionable time in their life when they’re likely to start making the decisions that will shape what their adult lives will turn into… it sounds like a good thing.

Less expensive for the city/state/country to prevent the crimes from being committed in the first place and not to have to house criminals and foot legal bills. Obviously, keeping tragic crimes from happening. Taking proactive measures to keep potential criminals from crossing the line rather than blaming guns for every shooting that happens. Getting people who are at risk over a rough hump in their lives which results in them getting into good habits. Sounds like a lot of pros, and the only con I can think of is that it p’s me off that action like that is necessary.

[KyJim]

The proof will come later down the road. Do these guys stay out of trouble or do they lapse back into their anti-social behavior?

[Dragline45]

I don't believe in the concept of paying people not to break the law.

[wogpotter]

Paris, France did that with the viking raiders. Guess how well it worked out for them in the long run.

[teeroux]

It works now until someone decides they want $2,000 not to be a criminal and so on.

[lamarw]

Do they pay other law abiding citizens?

Are taxes paid on this new source of income?

Do they monitor what the bribe money is spent on?

Do they determine the receivers are U.S. citizens?

How do they determine these individuals are criminals and have they paid for their previous crimes?

What is the source for these bribe payments?

[leadcounsel]

This is how we created temporary stability in Iraq during and shortly after the surge.

I suppose on some levels it is valid. However, the gains are relatively short lived and it creates more bad actors in the long run.

We paid the terrorists and would-be terrorist in Iraq to join us and self-police, and prevent IEDs and such, for the low wage of just a couple dollars per day each. This multi-billion dollar program was a success, but it was all based on very corrupt and dirty relationships.

Ultimately the money ran out, and we stopped paying, and to no surprise these folks went back to terroristic acts. Same thing will happen here. It's a dirty stop gap measure that will only have success until the money runs out.

Better solutions are needed to address the violent crime, gun violence in particular. Paying people to behave is just a form of socialism and government handouts that will create, rather than cure, problems.

[Mike38]

Wasn't something similar to this done in some public school systems? They paid "at risk" kids to behave, paid for good grades, etc. I believe it only worked for a while, then the "at risk" kids slipped back to their old ways.

[steveno]

if after the 9 months are up and they get charged with a crime do they have to give the money back? do they tack on more jail time?

[TLeo]

As soon as the money stops, they will resume their criminal behavior.

[Tom Servo]

I'm not aware of any historical instance in which appeasement was a viable long-term strategy.

This may bring the numbers down for a time (read: election cycle), but it's far from being a solution.

[kilimanjaro]

So, are these miscreants now on the public payroll? Wondering what the city is opening itself up for when a crime is committed by one of these losers while getting his bribe money.

This isn't a welfare check, or EBT, it's money to perform, or not perform, certain acts as required by the city, for pay.

I have very little support for such a policy, this isn't Iraq, we don't have to pay off warlords to keep order and prevent a deeper quagmire from developing, this is an American city with police, courts, attorneys, and jails in place to deal with the problem effectively, instead of just throwing money around and hoping it works. Lowering the crime rate for a few months just means the victims are different in place and time.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's not talk about extra legal violent solutions to posture. Deleted some.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by KyJim

I'm still a bit on the fence about this. What do you think?

How is this different from paying farmers NOT to plant corn (or wheat, or soybeans)?

[ballardw]

Pay the danegeld and the dane will return, wanting more.

It sort of begs the question: if they know who to pay, why are they still on the street?

[KyJim]

Ultimately the money ran out, and we stopped paying, and to no surprise these folks went back to terroristic acts. Same thing will happen here. It's a dirty stop gap measure that will only have success until the money runs out.

This is a concern. Even if some of the current crop of guys getting paid turn things around, there's a new crop coming up every couple of years.

[44 AMP]

I'm still a bit on the fence about this. What do you think?

I think history teaches us that once you pay the Danegeld, you are NEVER rid of the Dane.

Also, that if you stop paying them, they get upset and try really hard to take what they feel they are entitled to.

Personally I don't think the city is doing the right thing. I'm just glad they aren't doing it with my money.

[JERRYS.]

the Nobles paid the Vampires, and in turn the Vampires only preyed on the peasants.

[kilimanjaro]

Aguila, paying a farmer to fallow a field or grow something is regulating lawful behavior in a positive way. Giving money to lowlifes just means they'll allow their behavior to be regulated only until the money runs out, they suborn other lowlifes to do their dirty work, or they get drunk, stoned, or angry. Crime should not pay.

[Buzzcook]

After reading the article it seems to me many of the posters here didn't.

It is not a simple exchange of money for refraining from criminal activity. The article says that the youths are mentored and gotten employment.

In the example given the young man is fully employed in a good job and still works with the program to reach out to other at risk young men.

That's pretty much a success story.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

It is not a simple exchange of money for refraining from criminal activity.

From the article: "The young men were invited to a meeting where they were told they would be eligible for payments of up to $1,000 a month if they participated in mentoring and meetings and stayed out of trouble."

It is except that you have to participate in mentoring and meetings. If these people aren't getting into trouble in the first place, then why include the provision (and payment) of staying out of trouble? People should be grateful enough to get free guidance to help make something out of their lives. Paying people to behave is a complete deflection of personal responsibility.

[Pond, James Pond]

I think there is generally a conflict of interest when it comes to the ways in which crime is dealt with.

First one has to decide what we want the end result to be. Do we want crime to decrease? Do we want the criminals to have a horrible experience by issuing some kind of punishment? Do we want victims to feel vindicated?

Do we want something that will satisfy the individual who has suffered from crime or do we want to serve society as a whole?

Unfortunately, all of these seldom come from the same action.

Truth is that incarceration is not the best deterrent and indeed often fosters criminals into new areas of antisocial behaviour.

I once saw a very interesting documentary looking at different ways of addressing the issues of crime in different countries. The details escape me now except one point that has stayed with me. Myself, others on this forum etc who respect the law do so not from fear of punishment but from sense of duty.

We've seen someone walking with their back-pack open and an easily accessible camera or walked past a drive where an empty car is idling. We don't steal them not because we'd get turfed into jail but because we've feel it is wrong.

So in that respect, looking to prison to solve issues is not the best course. Having said I can well see why someone who was victimised would want to see the other punished. However, for the most part, although the individual will think it serves them right, statistically, the likelihood is that the perpetrator will re-offend upon release after considerable public expense: society is not served by that incarceration over the long term.

Rehabilitation, whilst not giving the victims the "not so clever now, are you scumbag?" feeling of seeing them sent down for 5 years, does tend to reduce rehabilitation rates, certainly in the situations that I have seen figures for. One of the reasons for petty crime is a lack of a sense of ownership within society. The people often feel that they are part of the society and have been rejected: why should they then respect it? There was a scheme where young offenders were tasked with clearing an area alongside volunteer locals. As other were involved it felt less like a punishment. It included tidying parks and painting over grafitti. Once don, they felt pride in their contribution and offence when someone littered the area or defaced the new mural. They had learnt to care about the community they inhabit because they'd had direct influence on its well-being, something they'd not had before.

So if a scheme is aimed at rehabilitating before a crimes are committed, before there is the expense of prosecution and imprisonment and before someone's life is tarred by a criminal record it seems to me to be a wise investment, provided if it is yielding results.

[TimSr]

...to young men most likely to be involved in violent crime

This is the most troubling part to me. It basically says good responsible kids get nothing, while their parents have to pay thugs to temporarily act like their kids act with good parenting. Somehow the old method of not rewarding good behavior from some because it is expected, and rewarding others because it is not expected stinks of a double standard. Pay them all, or pay none of them.

[NJgunowner]

I'd prefer a system that puts them through a trade school or college (if they're capable) and gets them a job. Then they can pay taxes that helps the next kid.