PAID to NOT commit crimes!?

[mjr]

Yes, they are actually.

No. Some are.

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.

Crime happens for a very simple reason. See if you can tell me what it is.

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

Sure. If you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

[Greenday]

Crime happens for a very simple reason. See if you can tell me what it is.

Implying crime happens for a single reason? Wow.

Necessity
Passion
Boredom (though rarer)

None of which is really simple.

This thread is a great example of why the American Dream is dead. The middle class is too focused on not letting the poor catch up and not at all focused on the increasingly enormous gap between the middle class and the rich.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I still boggle at how people get so up in arms about something that has no bearing on their lives at all.

It's tax dollars being used (taxes you'd still have to pay.) Less tax dollars than it would be without the program with a successful rehabilitation. It saves the US people money.

Someone that you will never meet, never exchange words with, getting a small amount of money to help them rebuild themselves gets your panties in that much of a twist? It has nothing to do with you. You are not worse off because of this program, someone else is just a little better off than where they were before (and more likely than not, still worse off than you.)

I can't believe there are people out there that are so freaked out that someone else might be able to improve their lives because of a little governmental help. Governmental help that they have to work for, after they have already served their punishment.

Society took the burden on its shoulders to continue punishing people who already had their punishment; Society is now trying to fix that problem. At less cost than it would be to ignore them and have them reoffend.

"It's the principle of the thing" - is what I suppose the argument may be, but I hate that argument.

For the vast majority of people, this is a total non-issue. Those tax dollars would still be spent, either to arrest, put on trial, and incarcerate them, or - at less money - try to help them pick themselves up and be productive.

Bribing implies that society is getting something it shouldn't have by giving these people a little bit of cash to help. What it's getting is less crime, more productive members, and more bang for their buck.

It's an investment, not bribery.

[Gravekeeper]

No. Some are.

Which is exactly the point of the program. What the hell are you even arguing?

Crime happens for a very simple reason. See if you can tell me what it is.

Still not raising the bar above childish.

Sure. If you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

No misunderstanding necessary. Its exactly what you said. Are you sure you understand what you're saying?

[s_stabeler]

it's also worth noting that this is about preventing people committing their first violent crime. and the rules, from what i can tell, are strict- slip up even once, and say bye bye to any more cash.

so yes, I do think this program, ultimately, is worth it. Let's face it, even if it was just tossing money at people who would otherwise have committed crimes, the amount the program pays is less than the cost of imprisoning them, Hence, even if it wasn't for the therapy, it would make financial sense.

Oh, and as for the example of the kid being paid to get As- that's because that example shows a fundamental flaw in your understanding of incentive systems. If you give the kid $5 to get As, then to him, working hard enough to get As is worth $5. So yes, once you withdraw the $5 he would stop. It doesn't, however, mean the idea was stupid- just that the payments in question should not have been stopped.(basically, the extra work required to get As is worth $5 to the kid. Withdraw the $5, and it is no longer worth it)

[TheHuckster]

Crime happens for a very simple reason. See if you can tell me what it is.

Dude, this is a debate forum, not a guessing game. And as others have pointed out, crime happens for more than one reason, although a good portion of them happen as a result of some combination of desperation and opportunity (e.g. finding peers to help you out, etc.).

[mjr]

try to help them pick themselves up and be productive.

You, in a general sense, can help someone be productive without paying them to not commit crimes.

Hundreds of thousands of people go every day without committing crimes. Should they get money, too?

[mjr]

Which is exactly the point of the program. What the hell are you even arguing?

Because, as I said, people don't commit crimes -- until they do.

Criminals aren't criminals -- until they are. That's why they're criminals.

Still not raising the bar above childish.

Pot, meet kettle.

No misunderstanding necessary. Its exactly what you said. Are you sure you understand what you're saying?

I understand exactly what I'm saying.

[Greenday]

Just ignoring all points everyone else is bringing up instead of responding to them. Either we are wrong and you can prove why or you can just continue to say "NOU" and not have an argument to base your opinion on.

[Gravekeeper]

Just ignoring all points everyone else is bringing up instead of responding to them. Either we are wrong and you can prove why or you can just continue to say "NOU" and not have an argument to base your opinion on.

^ That.

Either offer something of substance or let us all know now if this is the extent of your participation in your own topic.

[Talon]

Well this thread went downhill fast, predictably so.

People who aren't moved by facts aren't worth debating. Might as well play checkers with a pigeon.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Yeah, once someone ignores the entirety of my post and picks out a single, short sentence in the paragraphs I put, I'm done. Didn't even respond to it with anything of substance. The point wasn't that I cannot be productive, but that people need help to be productive when they want to be, but there are roadblocks stopping them from it.

This isn't a debate. o7

I can already predict what the response will be. The quote will be "This isn't a debate" and the answer will simply be "If you can't understand my points then you should leave" or something along the lines of me bowing out because I know I'm wrong.

[BlaqueKatt]

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.

They're taking time that could be used either working a second part-time minimum wage job or planning further criminal activity and being paid to do something that betters them, it's almost like those in the program are getting paid "life coaching". Which isn't a bad thing at all.

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.

Americans have a weird thing about wanting to be "better" than other people, I get looked down on for being "just a security guard" all the time(rent-a-cop, bacon bits-both common terms I've heard)*. I like my job, it suits me, I get paid to interact with people for a maximum of 45 seconds, which is about my tolerance limit, I'm outside if I want to be. I'm not horribly in debt, my bills are paid, my cats are fed, yet I'm supposed to be ashamed of my job because reasons.


Aside from that many americans have this toxic attitude of "everyone has the same opportunities" and lovely platitudes like "if you really want it you'll find a way, if not you'll find an excuse" abound. it's pretty well summed up here

Americans are very fond of the ""Just world theory" which somewhat correlates to religion.

Zick Rubin of Harvard University and Letitia Anne Peplau of UCLA have conducted surveys to examine the characteristics of people with strong beliefs in a just world. They found that people who have a strong tendency to believe in a just world also tend to be more religious, more authoritarian, more conservative, more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and more likely to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups. To a lesser but still significant degree, the believers in a just world tend to "feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate plight of social victims."

*A couple friends of mine work for a security company that gets police level training, that security company actually has it's own private S.W.A.T. team, but even the members of said team are looked down on as "just security guard".

[Titi]

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?

YES! My brother offered this to my son (who was getting D's and F's) in his sophomore year of high school. He only did it one year and my son is now a Senior who is on not only still on the honor roll but in his junior year got into the Academy of Finance at the Manchester School of Technology where he has an internship and an A.

He was unmotivated because he became lazy once he had the monetary motive he step it up and found he actually was learning things that he hadn't known before and loved it.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd rather that some small portion of my tax money go to paying a likely criminal not to commit a crime, than be mugged, or shot in the face. If it cuts down on crime, it saves money.

Who cares if someone gets something they don't 'deserve'? Yes, it bothers me a little that I get less than that, but ultimately, this isn't about them. It's about protecting their potential victims.

Now, you do point to the many people who are quite well off, who nonetheless commit crimes. And yes. If someone commits crimes despite being well off, then that doesn't mean we should let them keep at it. We should figure out why they did it, and how to prevent them from doing it again.

If paying someone to not be a criminal will stop me from being robbed, or beaten, or mugged, then I want to pay them. Our current system doesn't stop it. If this can cut down on crime, then let's try it.

Of course, it might not cut down on crime. In that case, it would be a waste of money, and we should stop doing it. But let's not call it a waste until we see whether it works or not.