Haumana wrote:California wrote:
As ridiculous as the policy sounds, it probably is cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run when you save on police OT, court costs, prison/jail costs, etc.
That is the conclusion we arrived at over on the Facebag group too, essentially it is triage. Which is a bit of a sad statement in itself. Waiting to see what the actual ROI for this carrot. Safe money would have to assume that the majority of the target audience is already receiving public tax dollars, so in one way this is like giving them two scoops of ice cream so they don't shoot anyone.
Speaker to Animals wrote:
Spending a week in lockup would be worth shouting out "Gibs!" as soon as the gavel came down on that vote.
Gibs and dindu are two hilariously accurate meme age words, imho.
Well, whatever you subsidise, you will get more of. So if you pay gang members for not committing crimes, by theory you will get a lot more gang members who aren't. How you will arrive there is the important question. It will be a hell of a lot easier to recruit new gang members if they can promise such an outcome, that's for sure.
To me it sounds like decriminalization of protection racketeering against the state. "Would be a shame if violence broke out downtown, right? For the right sum we can make sure it doesn't happen".