PAID to NOT commit crimes!?

[mjr]

Really? Really?

Has our society really come to this??

I get this is couched as "helping" by encouraging "behavioral therapy"...but really??

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-02-13-17-17

[Greenday]

So basically it's a small stipend to encourage people to better their lives, thus easing a burden on society in the end.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Rapscallion]

Well, I can see why people would react badly to hearing this news, but if it works it's fiscally sound.

First option: several likely candidates for jail are paid money and mentored and most become functional, productive members of society. It doesn't work for a percentage whose crimes are cried about by the right-wing press. The productive folk are able to contribute to society and the cost of them not committing crime is massively overawed by the negative fiscal contribution not endured by the effects of crime and the cost of the justice system and incarceration.

Second option: do nothing about likely candidates for jail, a few don't become criminals and those that do are a significant drain on society.

Fiscally, it makes sense, but the initial reaction of 'I wasn't paid to be good, why should they get money for being the same' is understandable. It does, however, betray a lack of appreciation of the situation of the likely criminal grouping, where they have fewer opportunities to improve themselves. Of course, if it sounds so good, feel free to swap with them!

Rapscallion

[Daskinor]

Its one of those situations where this might be cheaper down the road then sending people to prison.

Why housing homeless is cheaper then letting them be out on the streets.

Why paying out welfare is cheaper then not paying it.

Some people just cant get over the fact someone else gets something they don't. Even if the reason for it makes their own lives better in ways they cant quite comprehend.

[TheHuckster]

I understand the principle of encouraging people to better their lives by reducing their financial burden. At the same time, as Rapscallion says, I understand those who think this could be perceived as a "reward" for being a criminal. A first offender gets paid a stipend, while someone with a clean record gets jack shit and is similarly burdened financially.

I also don't agree with the amount of pay in the town that began the first such program, which amounts to $750 per month. I'd also like to know how long one is paid for after they receive their first check.

It's important to note, though, that it's not just not recommitting crimes that entitles you to payment, but also participating in therapy and other programs that will also reduce the probability of you becoming a reoffender. In this case, I might see how this might reduce the crime rates, although I'd have to wonder how many people who have nothing else to lose might decide to commit their first crime just to get jail over with and take advantage of the benefits after.

[mjr]

This is like the stories you read about, though, where a school or a school district pays kids who were making C's so that they make A's and get tutored by the kids already making A's, or by teachers, or whoever..

It's a similar thing, really.

[Gravekeeper]

Not really seeing the outrage here. The stipend is dependent on completing programs designed to reduce the risk of violent crime. And socioeconomic condition is THE single biggest indicator of crime. Bar none.

9k a year is a pittance compared to legal costs involved in trials and incarceration. Trials and incarceration you would be paying for with your tax dollars regardless.

Like Daskinor said, its like how its cheaper to literally give the homeless homes than it is to let them be homeless.

America has such a weird hang up with the idea of anyone getting something they don't "deserve" or acknowledging that class mobility is far more difficult than the American Dream(tm) indicates. Even if them getting said thing is a net benefit to everyone involved.

[TheHuckster]

This is like the stories you read about, though, where a school or a school district pays kids who were making C's so that they make A's and get tutored by the kids already making A's, or by teachers, or whoever..

So, you'd rather have students who gets C's to not get any help to improve themselves and therefore become better educated adults who might one day help eradicate cancer? I mean, that's the whole friggen point of having a school system in the first place: Educating our youth.

This attitude is one of the reasons the United States has such a dismal education system compared to other countries.

[mjr]

So, you'd rather have students who gets C's to not get any help to improve themselves and therefore become better educated adults who might one day help eradicate cancer? I mean, that's the whole friggen point of having a school system in the first place: Educating our youth.

This attitude is one of the reasons the United States has such a dismal education system compared to other countries.

No, no.

It's a problem of expectations. If a kid is making C's because he's unmotivated, and then he starts getting A's because the school is giving him $25 per A, there's almost a Pavlovian response, in my opinion, to that. Then, when the kid has gotten A's for two semesters, if you quit giving him the money...do you think he's going to continue to get A's, if the "motivation" is no longer there?

[mjr]

Not really seeing the outrage here. The stipend is dependent on completing programs designed to reduce the risk of violent crime.

Ok, I'll play. What this does is basically says, "Ok, we're gonna bribe you to go to 'behavioral therapy', and then to not commit crimes in the process."

That's like me telling my 10 year old, "Clean your room for a week and I'll give you $5. And if you let me show you how to keep it clean, and you do so, every week after that I'll give you $5."

I've seen people on this very forum complain that certain individuals/groups are essentially being treated like children or lesser citizens. Doesn't this sort of do that?

Can I sign up for this if I haven't already committed a crime? I can take $700 a month to do something I do anyway.

And socioeconomic condition is THE single biggest indicator of crime. Bar none.

Tell that to Bernie Madoff and all those "Wall Street Bankers" that people keep bitching about.

America has such a weird hang up with the idea of anyone getting something they don't "deserve"

In that case, I should go into work tomorrow and demand a $200K salary. I don't deserve it, yet, but hey, that's what I want. That's essentially what you're saying.

or acknowledging that class mobility is far more difficult than the American Dream(tm) indicates. Even if them getting said thing is a net benefit to everyone involved.

And there are many true and false reasons for that. And a lot of misinformation and misconceptions. On both sides.

[Gravekeeper]

That's like me telling my 10 year old, "Clean your room for a week and I'll give you $5. And if you let me show you how to keep it clean, and you do so, every week after that I'll give you $5."

<shrug> you can make all the random analogies you want. But this makes political, social and economic sense. If something works on all fronts, should it be nixed purely because you think someone is getting something they don't "deserve"?

Can I sign up for this if I haven't already committed a crime? I can take $700 a month to do something I do anyway.

Are you at risk of committing a violent crime? Cus the article is pretty clear this is a targeted program. So this argument is pointless.

Tell that to Bernie Madoff and all those "Wall Street Bankers" that people keep bitching about.

Really? I mean, really? This is a borderline childish argument.

In that case, I should go into work tomorrow and demand a $200K salary. I don't deserve it, yet, but hey, that's what I want. That's essentially what you're saying.

Thats not what me, the article or anyone else is saying. If you have nothing to offer here except hurt feelings and poorly constructed strawman arguments then lets just nix the thread here.

[Rageaholic]

In that case, I should go into work tomorrow and demand a $200K salary. I don't deserve it, yet, but hey, that's what I want. That's essentially what you're saying.

Apples and oranges. The program isn't recklessly giving people what they want, it's giving them what they need (to keep them out of crime) at little cost to the people.

From the article,

McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends "pales in comparison" to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender.

[mjr]

Are you at risk of committing a violent crime? Cus the article is pretty clear this is a targeted program. So this argument is pointless.

People aren't at risk of committing violent crimes -- until they do.

I'll just let you think about that one.

[Gravekeeper]

People aren't at risk of committing violent crimes -- until they do.

Yes, they are actually. You're acting like why crime happens is some sort of huge mystery that humanity has yet to solve. Rather than something that has been a field of study for 200 years.

Your entire argument here is literally just "I am upset because someone is getting something I don't think they deserve". Facts be damned.

That is a childish argument and your defense of it so far has yet to raise that bar.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

It's pretty much proven that if someone makes a poor decision and commits a crime that sends them to jail, once they get out they are going to have a harder time getting their life back together because no one wants to give them a chance. If they are roadblocked at every opportunity, and struggling to fix the mess they made with their previous poor decision, the money problems they are faced with makes turning back to crime very appealing.

If they can't get back on their feet cleanly because no one will let them, then why the hell shouldn't they commit more crimes?

This program helps ease the blow of returning to society, but it is no where near enough money for them to sit back, kick their feet up, and smoke a joint while musing about how committing that crime was awesome for their life. They do have to work for it, going to programs and meeting other criteria to continue receiving that small amount of money.

9k a year amounts to $25 a day, which is $3.13/hour if they were to work an 8 hour shift.

Would if be nice if I got an additional $750 a month? Sure would, but I also realize that I personally don't need that additional $750 to try and pick up the pieces of a life I shattered when I committed a crime. Just like I don't need the additional help that comes with food stamps or other welfare benefits. So the fact that someone else is being proactive about fixing a life they mistakenly messed up, and getting a bit of help to do that, makes me proud of the people that put that program into action.

Especially because it means that less of my tax dollars are being spent on the same person if that person happened go back to crime because trying to go legit was not working.

But then again, I'm a "bleeding heart."