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

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KyJim

New member
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/o...-crime-hand-over-cash.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

There's a condensed story at: http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...tential_shooters_and_paid_them_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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I'm still a bit on the fence about this. What do you think?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top