Seattle To Send First-Time Non-Violent Criminals To ‘Community Panel’ and Have Taxpayers Pay Their Restitution
“We can send that person instead (of jail) to a community accountability group, who will define what they think accountability means”
Seattle is about to try a new form of community policing which would have criminals face a non-profit community panel and in some cases, put taxpayers on the hook for restitution.
The left said they wanted to ‘reimagine’ law enforcement. Consider this a preview.
Jason Rantz writes at KTTH Radio:
Seattle experiment says no jailtime for crime, but has taxpayers split bill
Under an experimental program in King County, first-time criminals will not see jail time for crimes, nor pay restitution. Instead, the suspects get a pass from any jailtime or record, with the “community” choosing the punishment. Plus, as an added bonus, county taxpayers will quite literally pay for the crimes.
It’s the latest scheme from King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg to give a pass to criminals, while giving himself the ability to ignore his job. And even though these crimes disproportionately occur in Seattle, it’ll be the entire county that pays…
Under the “restorative justice” program, non-violent, first-time felons will face a non-profit community panel to decide how the offender will be held accountable. But Satterberg won’t define what he means by accountability.
“We can send that person instead (of jail) to a community accountability group, who will define what they think accountability means,” Satterberg told KOMO TV.
It is amazing to think there are taxpayers in Seattle who would put up with this part:
Taxpayers literally pay a price
The victims of these crimes do get to recover stolen or destroyed property. We will all have to pay for it, rather than the criminal.
“Sometimes it can take years before restitution is paid to a victim and the person responsible may repeatedly come back to court when they don’t pay,” Satterberg told KOMO. “The reality of the situation right now is, victims are not being taken care of. This will help us take care of their immediate needs to a cap of, say, $500.”
Has everyone in Seattle lost their minds?
Total destruction of a beautiful, once great American city. An absolute tragedy.
— lisa m (@michelelf8) November 30, 2020
I can’t comprehend the mentality of the people who live in Seattle who accept policies like this. What do they think the outcome will be?
— Open Neanderthal Number 6 (@TheChuck1nator) November 30, 2020
I can see the nut jobs on the Minneapolis City Council wanting to try this.
— SWA (@scotswa1) November 30, 2020
Republicans need to start running more candidates for city council positions, school boards, mayors, and other municipal roles.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Keep it up, Seattle. You’re doing great! Thanks for the entertainment!
Good for them. It’s what the people in Seattle have voted for; let them have it. So long as *they* are paying for it (both monetarily and consequentially), I really don’t care. I will not, however, be visiting Seattle (or Portland, for that matter) anytime soon, however.
With all the election fraud becoming uncovered, who’s to say that the people actually voted for that government? We no longer have that assurance.
Having lived in Seattle for 16 years, I can tell you that they did vote for it. We left in 2017 after a few years of seeing the handwriting on the wall. That city is deeply dysfunctional, and has been for the past decade. No one could have predicted the events of 2020, but the city’s response has not surprised us at all.
Sorry Nancy Pelosi has been trying to get a bail for Democrat states that have blown up their budgets. Once the Dems steal the senate seats in Georgia you will be bailing out states like New York and Washington. Which I am sure will pay for justice reform like that in Seattle.
Well, no. The people “in” Seattle have voted for it, but people outside Seattle are now being penalized for it.
Note the scam here: the county residents get to pay for all the crime, but the criminal “sentence” is decided by a “community panel,” whose members will almost certainly be chosen exclusively from the deep blue neighborhoods inside the city proper.
Three words: taxation without representation. Fail.
Acting out liberal fantasies.
Glad I saw Seattle in earlier times, will never set foot there again.
It was nice in the 60’s and 70’s – taking a date to Seattle Center or the waterfront – Ivar’s, Ye Olde Curiosity Shop, etc. Went a few times in the 80’s and 90’s and haven’t been there since, save for a surgery at Swedish Ortho in ’18. What a shock that last time was – the homeless in densely packed tents under I-5 for blocks. That area was always filthy – but now it’s a human pit.
50 state laboratory, if you can keep it.
Soon to be 53 after the Democrats get statehood for D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam.
Is there any limit upon the punishment that the “community” might mete out? Could the “community” order beheading, or that the suspect clean the homes of members of the “community.”
I know what my neighbors would opt for out here. The criminals would be happier, and healthier, going to prison.
We will see a lot of “community service” which is nothing new. The question is whether the panels will be based on race. In Oregon the state is openly racist in favor of blacks using federal CARES money. Also, interestingly, minority sex workers get special funding too.
Why not set up an organ bank, those are nice.
How can there be “accountability” if it’s the taxpayers who are footing the bill?
There’s some serious misunderstanding of what the term actually means.
You’re mixing up two things. The taxpayers compensate the victim, rather than make him pursue the perp, which is not worth doing. And the “community panel” figures out a way to hold the perp accountable.
Or, more likely, just blows that responsibility off, as everything else is now covered.
Crime victim compensation should be the government’s responsibility. And there shouldn’t be a $500 cap, either. The whole point of having a government in the first place is to protect us from crime. It’s what we pay taxes for. Everything else government does can be done better by the private sector, so the only reason “governments are instituted among men” is “to secure these rights”, which the private sector can’t really do without becoming a government (as Nozick shows). So when the government fails at its job, it should compensate the victims and then try to collect from the perpetrator. That will give it an incentive to actually try to do its job in the first place.
The other part also make sense, if the “community panel” reflects the actual community. They’ll be a lot harsher than a mere judge, because they have a direct interest in preventing future crimes that could just as easily target them. The problem I see with this is that the punishments they think up will routinely be struck down by the real courts, as violating the 8th amendment. A way around this would be to give the perp the choice: be tried in a real court, or go to the community panel after signing a waiver of your 8th amendment rights. In such a case I’d bet the panel would have very little work to do, and its only purpose would be to make the legal system look good.
How has the government “failed at its job” when citizens knowingly break the law?
Individual responsibility is so yesterday?
Because its job is to prevent people from knowingly breaking the law. That’s what it exists for. If it doesn’t do that, then what justifies its existence, and by what right does it collect even one penny of taxes?
You can make a better case that it’s the government’s job to prevent people from committing a second offense. After all, how does the government prevent a first offense?
Tell me, why do you think it is that crime has been rising so much lately? Were you at all surprised by this? I bet you weren’t, because you know it’s the inevitable result of the police being discouraged from doing their jobs. Why do we have police? What is the purpose of catching and punishing criminals? It’s to prevent them from committing their crimes in the first place. When we stop doing that crime rises. And when we do it properly crime is rare.
No. Part of its job is to prevent crime. In Western Civ, however, its primary responsibility is to justice – that is, punishment for crimes.
The second role of government is to defend the people from invasion/attack/etc.
You’re setting a false standard by saying it has to prevent crime. That can’t reliably be done. Period. At least, not with humans involved. (Almost no one is perfect, like you, Milhouse.)
Shouldn’t compensation be the criminal’s responsibility?
The government can pursue the criminal if it likes. But the fact that the crime happened means it has failed in its job and owes the victim. The victim should not have to pursue the criminal, which — even in the rare case when it’s not completely futile — often costs more than it’s worth.
No. You’re also (here and other comments) ignoring that the taxes paid to sustain government come from the innocents who were preyed upon by the criminal. And, yes, ALL citizens suffer when a crime is committed against one of its members.
If you want to say that “government” has failed when a crime is committed, then you had better mean “government = those within the government, elected or not.” If you want to make them pay, then go for it. But keep your damn hands out of my wallet when you pay restitution to the direct victim.
You also are putting responsibility upon the wrong person when you make government beholden to prevent crime. The responsibility is on each individual citizen to govern themselves in a free republic (why ours is sliding down a greased zipline toward oblivion). Therefore, someone deciding to commit a crime should bear the full burden of the consequences ALONE, as THEY made the decision to act with ill intent.
LI’s local MENSA member can NEVER be wrong!
The victim should not have to pursue the criminal
Now this I agree with. In Western Civ, the government is supposed to pursue the criminal. Partly out of equality (some cannot afford personal justice), partly out of ‘fairness’ (a judge and jury rather than vengeance), and partly out of preventing blood feuds (the idea of “sanctuary cities” in Old Testament Israel is one basis for this and the second one).
So you are on board with the government paying the restitution with the money the government makes by itself, not with taxpayer’s money? Paying with taxpayer’s money would be making the taxpayers doubly harmed, once by the criminal act which requires restitution and again when the government forces them to pay said restitution.
It isn’t necessarily a single stage process. I don’t know if this is how Seattle imagines it, but the victim could be compensated by the govt, then the criminal compensates the government. The victim doesn’t have to wait for recompense that way.
Of course from the taxpayers. Who else is the government? Where else could it possibly have money from?
How are the taxpayers doubly harmed? How are they harmed by the original crime? They’re not. But compensating the victim is properly their duty for the exact same reason that paying the police and the judges and jailers is their duty.
How are they harmed by the original crime?
Wow. So, society is not harmed by a rapist running loose? Or by a burglar hitting a neighborhood?
I wonder sometimes just where you get your ideas about civilization and the law.
From the back of a cereal box most likely. The resident pretend lawyer really needs better hobbies.
“The other part also make sense, if the “community panel” reflects the actual community.”
Given that this is Seattle, I can just imagine what the “community panel” would look like. Think “Revolutionary Tribunal” run by Maoist Red Guards:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Tribunal
Moreover, I wouldn’t count on the courts (Federal or otherwise) to strike down punishments because they violated the 8th amendment.
“The whole point of having a government in the first place is to protect us from crime.”
The Constitution imposes no general duty upon the police or any other government official to protect individuals from becoming victims of crime. (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989))
The Supreme Court has held that the primary purpose of the police is to protect ‘society,’ not individual members of that society. The duties of the police are to deter crimes through visible patrols, investigate crimes, collect evidence and to arrest those who commit crimes and aid in the prosecution of those persons.
Government, therefore, does not “fail at its job” when some miscreant commits a crime and should not be responsible for paying restitution to the victim. The perpetrator is responsible for making the victim whole, not the government.
That system manifestly isn’t preventing crime. Therefore it is a failure.
According to SCOTUS, it really isn’t a Constitutional duty of Government to ‘prevent’ crime, but rather to investigate crime and to prosecute and punish criminals.
The declaration of independence says the sole purpose of any government is “to secure these rights”. That means to prevent crime from happening in the first place. The purpose of catching and prosecuting offenders is to deter them from offending in the first place.
The purpose of catching and prosecuting offenders is to deter them from offending in the first place.
NO. ONE purpose is to deter crime. Nowhere in your premise is there the idea that it can be totally prevented. You’re adding that out of your own backside.
I disagree violently. I don’t believe in “precrime.”
The government’s official organs are responsible for investigating and punishing crime, not “preventing” all crime.
The prevention of crime is handled under the empowerment of individual victims by the Second Amendment. The Founders did not even imagine police (they would have been considered tantamount to a standing army). Individual rights are how they designed the system to address the problem of on-demand crime prevention.
The purpose of investigating and punishing crime is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
And that has to be one of the dumber things you’ve said.
This position is both correct and incorrect.
If a community chooses to allow the government to compensate the victims of crime, then it may do so. In fact, there are many such communities and even states which do exactly that. However, the responsibility for victim compensation should never be shifted from the person responsible for the need for compensation, the criminal, to the victims in need of the compensation, the community. Such government compensation should be viewed as a loan guaranteed by the criminal. Of course, an unintended consequence of this scheme would be to eliminate the need for private insurance companies. The state would become the insurer and the community would be responsible for the “premiums”, whether they wished to be insured or not.
Second, we already have a mechanism in place to not only determine guilt or innocence but to impose appropriate penalties for unacceptable actions, the judiciary. These penalties are set, to a large extent, by statute. And, in most locales, judges are answerable to the community at the polls. To take this a step further, many jurisdictions have statutory programs in place which allow for the diversion of criminals, especially non-violent first-time offenders, to programs which result in no jail time and no adjudication of guilt. And, they have been around for decades. So, the question then becomes, what is the purpose of the change proposed by Seattle? Is it to remove power from the judiciary and place it into the hands of the elected executive? Is it to by-pass the authority of the elected legislature to define crimes and set penalties pursuant to the wishes of the electorate and instill that power within an unelected panel? Whatever the goal, it is clearly not needed nor desirable.
And, of course, it could not be applied to violations of state law, which would fall within the jurisdiction of state courts. So, this is simply more evidence to support the conclusion that liberals are all insane and the more liberal the the greater the level of insanity.
Yes, there is a judiciary whose job it is. I already pointed that out. But people are not happy with the way it coddles criminals. A “community panel”, if it reflects the actual community rather than “social justice” activists, would be a lot harsher, and send the criminals begging for the real courts.
And, what do you think the make-up of a “community panel” will actually look like, in a liberal stronghold like Seattle? Please.
People were very unhappy with liberal touchy-feely judges handing out non-sentences for serious crimes. Where the judges could not be removed, usually because they were ensconced in liberal controlled areas, state legislatures enacted minimum mandatory sentencing requirements. See, the point is that the system works and is responsive to the wishes and the will of the electorate. So, why change it?
Now, as to these “community accountability panels”. What do you think a jury is? The difference between a jury and some appoint political panel is that a judge attempts to direct and hold a jury to making decisions within the framework of the law. Decisions concerning the law should be made based upon the law; not upon some community “feelings” about a particular case or individual. That wat=y lies the type of abuse which the citizens of this nation have been working to correct for centuries. And, these yahoos want to throw it all away. Good idea?
Look, you @#$%ing moron. What the @#$% did you think I meant by “If the “community panel” reflects the actual community”? Did you not even notice that key phrase?!
It is not a jury’s role to decide sentencing. It has never been its role. That’s what judges have always been for. And that’s what this proposal is against.
And “Decisions concerning the law should be made based upon the law; not upon some community “feelings” about a particular case or individual” is exactly right and exactly my point. If the “panel” reflected the actual community its decisions would be far harsher than those of the courts, and criminals wouldn’t like it; they’d be running to the courts to strike them down.
Also, minimum sentences are unconstitutional, which is why they became “guidelines”.
It is not a jury’s role to decide sentencing. It has never been its role.
Wow. That’s an ignorant statement. Plenty of places (though not nearly all) a jury decides the punishment of a criminal. Especially in capital crimes.
*smh*
“Look, you @#$%ing moron. What the @#$% did you think I meant by “If the “community panel” reflects the actual community”? Did you not even notice that key phrase?!”
Of course I noticed your phrasing. But, your argument for a “community panel” is flawed because you can not guarantee that the panel will accurately reflect YOUR idea of what the community wants. If it does not, well you lose, again.
Now, your claim that minimum mandatory sentences are unconstitutional is totally false. The SCOTUS has never ruled that a minimum mandatory sentence is unconstitutional. Statutory minimum sentencing standards are constitutional as long as they are applied evenly and the 5th and 6th Amendment rights of the defendant are observed. I refer you to the following:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/20111031-rtc-pdf/Appendix_E.pdf
The current system works well and is responsive to the wishes of the voting community. Therefor, why change to something which will likely prove to be far inferior?
Second, we already have a mechanism in place to not only determine guilt or innocence but to impose appropriate penalties for unacceptable actions, the judiciary.
And that mechanism often involves the community: a jury of peers.
You presume the panel will be made up of average citizens. However, I suspect the plan is for the DA to appoint volunteers, read activists. The jury (panel) has to be of peers.
OK, you got ahead of me on this.
I presume nothing of the kind. Try actually reading what I wrote, instead of pulling guesses out of your behind.
Since the only money “government” has to compensate anybody is tax money extracted from citizens, the bottom line of your proposal is that when government officials fail to do their job to protect the lives and property of citizens, the citizens should pay each other as a penalty. I don’t see any part of this plan as logical, nor do I see any actual punishment being handed out to the actual people who were derelict in their duty.
Yes, of course they should. You can’t possibly disagree with that. Or do you think nobody should ever be able to sue the government for anything, because the taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for what their employees do or fail to do in their name?!
Oh, and citizens would not be paying “each other”, they’d be paying the victim. That’s no different from what happens when anyone is wronged by the government and sues.
If the government has to pay victims, it has an incentive to do its job and minimize the amount it will have to pay out.
Yes, I can possibly disagree with that. If the government pays “penalties” out of confiscated money that it can simply replace in next year’s confiscation, how can you possibly claim this is incentive for government officials to do a better job? They haven’t been personally penalized in the least. You may as well argue that a kid will have incentive to stop shoplifting if you make his little brother pay for all the stolen items. Why don’t we just bring back the official position of Royal Whipping Boy, and solve everything? Most liberty-minded citizens today want to dismantle sovereign/qualified/absolute &c immunity — you want to set it in cement.
So you think when the government harms someone the taxpayers should not have to pay?!
A “community panel” is customarily called a “jury.”
Show me a moment where a Dhimmi-crat didn’t coddle criminals and paint them as alleged “victims;” then, I’ll be surprised.
Take a gander at Biden’s policy proposals, on his campaign website. Not a word is proffered about crime victims or community safety, but, there is plenty of the usual nonsense about how criminals are the real “victims” who must be kept out of prison because their incarceration is allegedly the product of “racism,” as opposed to freely-exercised will and individual choice. Biden claims he will reduce prison populations, while simultaneously reducing crime. A true Dhimmi-crat hustler, talking out of both sides of his mouth.
They don’t mind crooks. Crooks can be bought off or pressured as needed.
It’s the principled, lawful citizens who are not beholden to them that they fear and loathe and want to repress.
I wonder if this could be used to nullify the Seattle Covid restrictions? After all, they are non-violent.
And, given that this is likely to result in different punishments for the same crime, I wonder if it could get itself tossed out based on being arbitrary and capricious?
Looks like Seattle is going to act out Mencken’s quote on democracy: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
This proposal is right up there with another idiotic proposal that was proffered by the D.C. City Council, a few years ago — paying cash bribes to the city’s worst recidivist criminals upon their release from prison, as an incentive to not commit additional crimes. Apparently, the incentive which applies to the rest of us — maintaining our personal freedom, in exchange for obeying society’s laws — was deemed inadequate for criminal sociopaths “of color.” Hence the cash bribe.
The idea was canned, but, I expected it to be resurrected, in one form or another, and, now, voila.
I’m not sure I dislike the community reimbursement entirely. I’ve read that in colonial America, if a member of the community was robbed, the other members would pool resources to help restore the victim. They also policed by posse so the community members had good motivation to try hard to catch the criminal.
Put taxpayers on the hook for the crime they’ve come to tolerate in that city and the community might suddenly find themselves in dire need of much less tolerant leadership.
Yes, they might pool their resources. But, as you point out, they intended to catch the miscreant, as well. Why? to make him pay.
To paraphrase Barack Obama, the criminal didn’t do that crime — society did the crime by creating conditions that made the crime necessary.
Crimes occur when society fails “criminals”. Therefore, it is reasonable that society should remedy the situation. (Yes, this is sarcasm.)
Vile Obama to criminals, paraphrasing his infamous turd of stupidity to business owners — “You didn’t steal that; someone else made that happen.”
No, the government that society established for the specific purpose of preventing crimes like this one, failed. The fact that the crime happened means it didn’t do what it should have.
If administered correctly, with respect for the community and serious consequences for the violator, this could actually work.
This is Seattle, so it’s doomed.
The objective should at least be:
1) Perpetrator is less likely to perpetrate again.
2) Cheaper than jail.
Without a crystal ball, I can still tell fairly well how this will go.
-First, a vast lump of taxpayer dollars will go into planning and structuring the program, using only the finest Leftist organizations to shovel the money.
-Then with great fanfare, the first few non-violent criminals will be photographed picking up trash or sweeping a street. (no photographs of the clustering around the water bucket or comparing ink will be permitted)
-A few more criminals will dribble into the system at enormous expense while Leftists begin the traditional screaming about how this is forced labor, slavery, or other such terror.
– Then the first rape/murder/assault will occur, and the whole program will curl up into a ball while the vultures pick at the carcass.
-The leftover money will be used to give awards to the people who set this whole pyramid scheme up. Per capita, it will have cost more to ‘community’ each individual than to send them to the Bahamas for their time, but it will still be declared a success.
Yes, that’s how it’s likely to work, because the “community panel” will be made up of social workers and social activists, not actual community members whose primary concern is their own safety and that of their friends and neighbors.
I thought a “community panel” was called a jury of your peers.
Yes, except that a jury’s job is only to decide guilt or innocence. And it’s specifically not supposed to take into account things like community safety and the jurors’ own fears for their safety. This sort of panel, if it were to reflect the community, would be deciding sentences, and it would be much harsher than any court. This is not a good thing. But it’s also not a thing lefties would like.
OK, so there is no judge, and hence no controlling procedure, guidelines for sentencing, or precedent to try and ensure fairness in both process and outcome. So the jury here is also the judge. Who, then, is the executioner? How does the judge/jury “community panel” enforce its will?
So in other words this DA basically want to introduce the way the school system works for a certain percentage of students to the legal system.
No punishment for some students who break the rules or heck even commit crimes on campus. Check.
Taxpayers on the hook for such policies. Check.
A board has the final say on student conduct and the consequences of transgressions. Check.
At some point large amount of money going to Democrats is involved. Check.
This is failure theater at it’s finest.
Let’s be honest here, no defendant in their right mind would choose some non judicial diversion staffed by everyday, taxpaying, productive citizens who were unshackled from the minutia of legal precedent and respect for the rights of the accused.
What this will be is a kangaroo court staffed by ‘community activists’, limousine liberals and ‘faith leaders’. They will hand down bs judgements of community service which will be routinely ignored and are unenforceable.
This is a dangerous step. Removing the public and the judicial system and replacing it with some ad hoc group? This is how lynch mobs begin.
Have fun Seattle.
Exactly. That is exactly what I wrote above.
This is how lynch mobs begin.
Well, technically, it’s only one way lynch mobs begin. Another is that gov’t so ignores justice for the people that they simply take matters into their own hands.
Gee, I’m sure we’ll never see that happen in our society…….
In the 70’s, my father was a member of the ‘Juvenile Court Conference Committee’ in Kent (SE of Seattle about 20 miles in King co.). First time youth offenders were often sent to the committee for interview, sentenced to community service, and called back to review status. Restitution was required. My dad was a committee member and a real hard-nose who could put the fear of God in a kid with a stare – trust me – I know. That the community will pay restitution and assumes responsibility for the offenders behavior would appear to be the death knell of that once effective program. Dad would spit if he were aware of this development.
Requiring restitution is a fundamental part of justice (and one we’ve failed to keep in these latter years). It makes the criminal responsible for his behavior and provides extra incentive against recidivism.
Nope.
How did a non-violent criminal destroy the property that demands restitution?
“non-violent” is one of those terms that leftilibrals capriciously redefine whenever it’s politically advantegeous to do so.
So vandalism and out-and-out rioting are “mostly” non-violent, but “hate” speech and silence are violence.
And screw you racist, if you can’t keep up.
There are myriad scenarios. Littering slob tosses a lit cigarette butt near dry grass. Drunk driver plows into your house. Night burglar loots your shop.
From the linked KTTH Radio article: “Locking people up is very costly and it’s not affirmative for people’s lives,” King County Councilmember Jeanne Kohl-Welles told KOMO.
Yes, locking people up is costly, but they will likely find that it is more costly to let them get away with their crimes. The purpose of locking up criminals should not be to make them feel good about themselves, but to punish them for the crimes they commit.
Also from the linked article: Satterberg told KOMO “The reality of the situation right now is, victims are not being taken care of. This will help us take care of their immediate needs to a cap of, say, $500.”
So, the DA who’s brainchild this program is, wants to take tax dollars that were ‘de-funded’ from law enforcement, and hand it out to the victims. I don’t think it is really the responsibility of the government to ‘take care of’ the victims at taxpayer expense. Government’s responsibility in the process should be to arrest, prosecute, and punish the criminal instead of abusing taxpayers by diverting their tax dollars.
And who is going to determine the make up of this ‘community accountability group?’ What are going to be the qualifications? By what legal authority is this group going to sit in judgment of felony offenders and mete out punishment?
Look, the whole premise here is total BS. I worked within the criminal justice system for over three decades. And here is the straight skinny.
Almost NO ONE is ever sentenced to jail for a non-violent crime. No one. Most defendants receive probation or enter diversionary programs. It literally takes at least a three-time loser to receive any jail time for a non-violent criminal act. Get it? If none of these people are going to jail anyway, for non-violent crimes, why should we change anything at all. I have seen young adults sentenced to probation multiple times for burglary, which most states actually classify as a violent felony, exactly who are we going to be releasing through these panels?
This is all a scam or, worse, total insanity. The sane individuals in this country have got to wake up and deal with the insanity running amok among us.
“The purpose of locking up criminals should not be to make them feel good about themselves, but to punish them for the crimes they commit.”
More to the point, there are three objectives to imprisonment: punishment, quarantine, and hopefully reformation. People keep forgetting quarantine — society has an interest in protecting its members from known predators by taking them out of circulation. That is very “affirmative for people’s lives” — that is, the innocent people who should be at the top of her list of concerns, not the people who routinely victimize them.
it’s not affirmative for people’s lives
THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT, numbskull! The cult of self-esteem nears its pinnacle.
If this schmuck actually runs that scam here’s a “community accountability group” model for the Good citizens to adopt themselves- take a tip from when California actually had Americans running it & resurrect local Committees of Vigilance. That oughta offset “Prosecutor” Satterberg’s spineless pandering to the overly-vocal unAmerican panty wastes that he appears to fear much and prompt these “first-time felons” (read: 1st time the scum couldn’t plead out to a misdemeanor or use some ineffectual ‘program’) to think twice about plying their trade in those locales.
with the “community” choosing the punishment
Isn’t that what they’re already doing? What with sentencing laws and such? (Of course, what they really mean is “the radicals in the community” will decide.)
Absolutely. Step one was “defund the police to empower unaccountable roving leftist squads.” Step two is “defund the court and jury system to empower unaccountable panels of left-wing ideologues.”
The population of Seattle sways the entire state left in every election.
This would be the punishment I would choose for them.
Folks, maybe I missed it, but I am surprised that no one here sees this for what it is: The first step toward Cuban-style “block committees.”