http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...s_not_to_commit_crimes_tito_jackson_would_pay "The gunplay in City Councilor Tito Jacksons Roxbury neighborhood has kept him up nights searching for an answer to stop the violence. He found one, he says, in Richmond, Calif. The small San Francisco Bay Area city pays violent young adults a stipend of between $300 and $1,000 per month for up to nine months to abandon a life of crime. Its working, he says. Crime is down in Richmond." *sigh* Thats right, Boston wants us to pay extortion fees to criminals now. 1 grand per month per thug is all it will take you for them to not act like sub-humans. I thought this was a joke when I saw it on the local news here and on the radio.
or............what happens after nine months? Do they stay on the straight and narrow, or return the the life they love so much...........
Actually, no. Despite the erroneous raving of the hysterical, the truth is that is that the Boston City Council has only agreed to hear a proposal. They hear many. In Richmond, California there has been a stipend programme since 2010 for underprivileged youth who follow strict rules and set goals over an 18-month period. In Boston, Emmett Folgert founded the Dorchester Youth Collaborative 35 years ago, and raises $1.2M each year in private donations to "give kids an opportunity to educate themselves, to become workers and contributors to their communities and their families." Is it the best allocation of public resources? Knee jerk ideologues might shout "Yes!" or "No!" without assessing its merits, but that is precisely what the Council will do. Might such an approach reduce the public cost of doing nothing in the long run? That is a key question they will try to answer.
And where will they go to get that "education"? Their local public center for indoctrination commonly called public schools which will teach them almost nothing of value for succeeding in the real world?
They start bustin some caps in your kids again. - - - Updated - - - No its not extortion its just that they want to pay criminals to not hurt them.
Where? In Richmond, California? What data do you cite? I'd be happy to look at it. As a pragmatist, I've noticed that some folks just make up such things because it fits their knee-jerk ideological agenda. . .
It's "Paying for Protection" Any other description is pure spin. Pretty stupid thing to do. Soon the price will go up, or liberals will want to pass a bill for "Minimum Protection Wage" rates.
Wonder what one has to do to get the promotion from a $300 punk to $1,000 punk. Oh well, as long as it works.
Liberal economic practices.................throw other people's money at a problem the libs created.............that's droll - - - Updated - - - can we say foreign policy? we toss billions their way and still they attack............naw, repeating a mistake doesn't make it work better
Such as practiced in all first-world nations. Anyone who is acutely taxaphobic can follow their bliss to Somalia or Sudan. Again, if you can site data attesting to the failure of the approach in Richmond, California, I would readily assess it. As a pragmatist, I accept empirical data over ideological claptrap - which is why I am pleased that what had been airy-fairy TP economic notions have now been amply exposed in Sammy Brownback's disastrous "experiment," his vaunted "Red State Model".
Not quite what the program is. The program identifies high risk individuals, and encourages them to enroll in a mentorship program that includes goals, life mapping, and the stipend appears to come at the end of the program for those who are complying. If it works, why not? What costs less and prevents crime? http://www.thenation.com/article/19...n-bringing-its-murder-rate-down-without-cops# ONS defines high-risk as young men—as old as 25 and young as 13—who have likely been involved in previous homicides and shootings. The organization then asks them to sign up for an eighteen-month program called an Operation Peacemaker Fellowship. Over a year and a half, fellows develop and follow a “life map”—concrete steps they’ve laid out to build a different kind of life. In exchange for an agreement that they will put their guns down, ONS helps them reach those goals, with assistance that includes a monthly stipend of up to $500 in the final nine months of the program for fellows who are following through with their plans. They also connect fellows to job opportunities and social services. “They need structure,” Muccular explains. “They love someone to tell them, ‘look, you are not going to do that. You are better than that.
What part of the article was difficult? The part where they want to pay criminals to not be criminals? - - - Updated - - - Great so youll be sponsoring them with your own money?
As I noted, despite the erroneous raving of hysterical, knee-jerk ideologues, the Boston City Council has agreed to hear a proposal. In Richmond, California there has been a stipend programme since 2010 for underprivileged youth who follow strict rules and set goals over an 18-month period. In Boston, the Dorchester Youth Collaborative raises $1.2M each year in private donations to "give kids an opportunity to educate themselves, to become workers and contributors to their communities and their families." Is it the best allocation of public resources? That is a question that Boston's City Council will be asking. Privileged kids go to better schools and enjoy many advantages of wealth that lead to successful careers. If the underprivileged could have such opportunities, it might contribute to social stability and revenue whilst reducing crime and the costs of the criminal justice system, especially incarceration. The government assistance that a Ben Carson received allowed him to be a contributor to society rather than a financial burden. Avoiding monumental, long-term costs to the American people is well worth assessing such preventative pragmatic approaches. You have been unable to cite any adverse consequences to the programme in Richmond or the private initiative in Boston that I neither endorse nor denounce. Merely spouting off either way serves no useful purpose.
You mean other than paying criminals not to be criminals? Other than that mrs lincoln how was the play? If its so great pay for it with your own money then. How much would it cost me per month to make leftists not think of stupid ideas to waste our money on? The mafia had the same idea as well. They....like you...also thought extortion was not only successful but very profitable.
So, all you can do is whine about pragmatic approaches being assessed as you confirm your ignorance concerning the record of extant programmes? You can indulge yourself in your ideological tantrums, but seeking practical solutions necessitates objective analyses.
Cutting your arm off to fix a hangnail isnt a solution. If you want to cut your arm off thats fine with me as long as you pay for it. You never answered.....are you going to pay for it without my tax dollars or dont you like paying for stupid ideas with your own money?
No, that is why the merit of any proposed programme need to be carefully assessed before it is adopted or rejected. Knee-jerk ideological reactions either way are not solutions, and ignoring modest measures that could well result in enormous savings to the taxpayer in the long term is irresponsible - especially when those who carp about the approaches being evaluated cannot point to any adverse consequences.
So let me get this straight; kids who are good get nothing for being good to begin with and bad kids get rewarded for doing what they should have been doing all along? That's the proposal?
So you are refusing to state you will pay for it out of your own pocket and not use tax dollars? I thought so.
