If criminals are not prosecuted for crime, will that make crime statistics look better?

We are hearing that more and more AG's around the country, are decriminalizing crimes.

My theory is, they want the stats to look better in the future. If they don't arrest, or prosecute,
the crime rate statistics will ALWAYS look better, and the politicians in charge will be seen as
heros. Please note: this only only happening in Blue cities and states, with high crime.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Heartlander · 80-89, M

Yep. It's yet another version of sanctuary cities. To further bring down the crime rate, they can turn law enforcement over to drug gangs. Make the police afraid to go into certain areas of the city and crime will rapidly decrease there to near zero.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

Your wrong about blue States. I have lived and worked in red states like Texas and Wyoming. It doesn't happen if it doesn't get reported in red States.

That's the biggest difference between the two. Far more blue states are trying to do something than the red States. To do anything it needs to get reported, FIRST!

You can't prosecute if it's not even looked at. And to do that it takes money that the reds states refuse to tax!

BizSuitStacy · M

Good point. A friend of mine is a sheriff's deputy in northern CA...they arrest someone, do all the paperwork, only to have the DA drop the charges and release the perp. Makes the crime stats look better.

NativePortlander1970

@BizSuitStacy While the news shows how crime is getting worse and more violent.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

I somehow think there's more to the story than "they're trying to decriminalize all crimes" 😂

View 2 more replies »

NativePortlander1970

@SatanBurger Your reply actually backs mine up, here's what's considered the best movie version.
[media=https://youtu.be/KNyqyFNoHKw]

DogMan · 61-69, M

@SatanBurger It did not say ALL crime.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@DogMan I didn't say that. You just make it seem like it's all crime but it's probably only certain ones and I'd have to get a reason as to why before making an opinion

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

And embolden them and others to commit more crime

4meAndyou · F

That is correct. If you make burglaries and theft non criminal, and violent assaults that do not result in death non-criminal, then they are not added to the crime statistics.

DogMan · 61-69, M

@4meAndyou exactly!

NativePortlander1970

Yet in the meantime we're seeing news stories and articles of violent assaults against others are on the rise, leading people to surmise that the Prosecutors are actually soft on crime. This is funny because from the 1980's into the mid 1990's, dems were marketing themselves as tough on crime, leading to the dem heavy sponsored 1994 Crime Bill that BinBiden spearheades, nor can we forget how Killary Klintoon called young Black men super predators.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

DogMan · 61-69, M

@jshm2 🙄 Media outlets cannot change statistics, or crime rates. As of now we never hear
about crime in the Mainstream media.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

View 1 more replies »

MethDozer · M

@Heartlander No not really. Jurisdictions decide what to criminalize and not to criminalize. Jurisdictions as well decide how strictly they enforce a rule and whether or not they enforce the letter of the law or spirit of the law.

Besides this thread as stated by the OP is distinctly about decriminalization. Which means nothing more than moving am offense from a felony status. Making it a misdemeanor or civil violation.

Each level of justification decides what laws they want and what constitutes criminality and no jurisdiction is obligated to enforce the laws of another jurisdiction. It's always been this way.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@MethDozer Exactly 💯

Heartlander · 80-89, M

@MethDozer The problem with that is that we are then no longer governed by representatives of the people but by authorities with the power to pick and choose who to arrest/charge and proseccute. And that goes both ways. They can send one person to jail for jaywalking and set another free for armed robbery.

This was the backbone of racial injustice in America. If Black you can go to jail for looking at a white woman, if white you are free to look at anyone, anyway you wish. The reason for the laws is that it's NOT to be left to the discretion of the sheriff or the DA but equally applied and based on the collective interest of the people. Discretionary enforcement makes us NOT as society of law but a society of authorative discretion, not laws passed by the people.

Follow he sequence of what happens in American justice: (1) the police officer has discretion over whether to arrest someone or not; (2) the DA has discretion whether to charge someone and bring them to trial; (3) the judge has discretion to sort out the charges, throwing some out if he/she wishes, deciding what evidence is admitted, etc., etc.; then finally at the trial the instructions to the jury are (4) You have to base your judgement on the evidence and the law. Amazing. Everyone in the chain has discretion, everyone except the jury of the peers.

Add a comment...