You must log in or register to comment.

Brickleberried t1_jbu79cz wrote

Here's the thing to the people complaining about the crime reform bill because "crime is out of control": if you think crime is out of control now, that's under current law, so by killing the crime reform bill, you're literally supporting the very same laws that you think are currently causing crime to be "out of control".

If a 40-year maximum sentence doesn't deter car-jacking, are you asking for life in prison for carjacking? It's just a ridiculous, poorly reasoned attack on the reform act.

Massive own goal.


Deanocracy t1_jbu8j75 wrote

No… they just don’t believe the proposed bill helps reduce crime.

Pretty easy to understand unless your goal is to mischaracterize their position.


acdha t1_jbu9alb wrote

When they knowingly make false statements about the bill, it’s pretty clear what their goal is. The question is just when they’ll come out and actually say it.


Deanocracy t1_jbua69p wrote

“They” did huh.


acdha t1_jbuchph wrote

Hey, now’s your chance to show that critics of the bill are well informed. You could point to something specific and data supporting your claim that it’ll make crime worse.


Deanocracy t1_jbudq0b wrote

Well for example USAO Graves pointed to significant flaws in the handling of firearms in the bill which would lead to less prosecution of felons with guns.

The recidivism rate of that group is higher (ie they commit lots of crime) so… that’s one point.


RSquared t1_jbw3mif wrote

Possession was reduced because it's a possession crime, not a violent one:

> One change that’s drawn outsized attention is a reduction in the maximum penalty for being a “felon in possession”—that is, possessing a gun when you have a prior felony conviction. The RCCA drops the max for the charge from 15 years to four, for several reasons. First, being a felon in possession is not a crime of violence. It applies when an individual merely owns a gun, even if it’s sitting unused in their closet. If they ever carry or use it, the penalties shoot up dramatically. Second, no court hands down a 15-year sentence for possession alone, because it’s wildly disproportionate to the offense; the vast majority of people are sentenced to far less than four years.


Deanocracy t1_jbxbqvn wrote


the vast majority of people are sentenced to far less than four years.


Why are so many arguments for this bill containing passing reference to a serious issue with our justice system as if thats the ok state of affairs.

Its entirely undemocratic. If I asked this city what the sentence should be for a violent felon who has a gun on them illegally the answer wouldnt be “the vast majority should be sentenced to far less than 4 years”

Its a scandal whats happening in our courts and its a scandal that people are silent on it.

While seemingly well aware of the state of the courts when discussibg the reductions in sentences proposed in this bill.


Deanocracy t1_jbx3ooe wrote

It’s better when you understand the arguments being presented… avoids you presenting counter arguments to straw men created for you by the media and pundits.

My comment made no mention to Graves being against the terms proposed for felons with a gun.

Read my link… he was against the classification of unauthorized which would make it easier for criminals to legally own a gun.


Superb_Distance_9190 t1_jc1euan wrote

They should be sentenced to far more than 4! High Max penalties are there for a reason. It’s on the judge to handout proper sentences.


DrunkWoodchuck t1_jbu8zgn wrote

The point of the proposed bill wasn’t to reduce crime! Pretty easy to understand unless your goal is to mischaracterize the bill’s position…


Deanocracy t1_jbua94s wrote

the point of the proposed bill wasn’t to reduce crime!

On this we are in complete agreement


cptjeff t1_jbvyi2j wrote

> The point of the proposed bill wasn’t to reduce crime!

Yes, that was very clear.


SchokoKipferl t1_jbxmwk5 wrote

Very true. The bill did absolutely nothing to address the root causes and socioeconomic issues.


DrunkWoodchuck t1_jbus6ga wrote

Doesn’t matter, they will be the same people posting the “everyone feels unsafe, right?!” comments.

There will never be a moment of introspection 5 years from now when we have the same criminal statutes and no change in crime rate because they just taught congressional republicans that yelling about crime is a winning tactic, with congressional dems dumb enough to follow along.


washingtonpost OP t1_jbtiyuv wrote

From reporter Peter Hermann:

When D.C. embarked on a years-long process to overhaul its criminal code, one of the things city council members set out to do was remove from the books antiquated laws that are no longer relevant to modern society. But with Congress moving to nix the overhaul — concerned over other provisions, like the lessening of statutory maximum penalties for carjacking — some of the outmoded measures technically remain in effect.

Many of the laws are no longer applicable, and they are definitely not being enforced. Some were already stricken decades ago — like a ban on flying kites, which was scrapped in 1970. Others, with roots dating back to England in the 1700s, have been rendered moot by court rulings. Still others have been revised through subsequent legislation, but the original language was never removed from the official record.

Curse in public

In 1892, Congress criminalized cursing in public in the District, lumping it in with the crime of vagrancy. It made it unlawful “for any person or persons to curse, or make use of any profane language or any indecent or obscene words.”

Courts in subsequent years have taken a far different approach to free speech. The fine 131 years ago: $20. The same law also equates making an obscene gesture with the crime of indecent exposure, both punishable with fines up to $250.

Ride ‘any animal of the horse kind’ too fast

When cars weren’t so prevalent, it was illegal to ride “any animal of the horse kind” in D.C. at “a rate of speed exceeding eight miles per hour.” It was also illegal to turn a corner with a horse going more than 4 mph.

Whether the law remains technically in force, though, is somewhat unclear. Notes from the commission that reviewed D.C.'s code as part of the overhaul say it may have been repealed, but because the group couldn’t confirm that, the overhaul would formally remove it.

Read about more of these laws here, and skip the paywall with email registration:


BigE429 t1_jbtsfkl wrote

I, for one, am sick and tired of people riding their horses around town like they're in the damn Kentucky Derby


EPethy t1_jbxgfdx wrote

Well it's DC so they'll get horsejacked eventually


AnonyJustAName t1_jbtq1pd wrote

That bill is over.

The only productive discussion is being "smart and strategic" about moving forward, working with allies on the Hill.

Whipping people up over something that is done is silly and serves no useful purpose but division and rumination.


DrunkWoodchuck t1_jbusee4 wrote

There aren’t enough allies on the hill for the council to do anything. A progressive council will never get a bill past a Republican congress if republicans can just lie about what’s in the bill to get bipartisan agreement to kill it.

It was this bill or nothing for years, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.


cptjeff t1_jbvyneu wrote

> It was this bill or nothing for years,

No. It would have been extremely easy to modify or remove the few provisions that people didn't like and pass a completely non controversial bill. And that option is still available!


AnonyJustAName t1_jbutnku wrote

If you're right should have gotten it to the Hill before the election.

Also if you are right, do you anticipate a 4 year break from any legislation?

The existing laws are not the reason there are so many no papered, under charged and plead down cases. That would be the USAO and AG. And if there are reasons they cannot bring solid cases, those need to be addressed. Always most useful to focus on the things you CAN control.

After what Congress did re; Bowser, was foolish to think anything different would happen to bill in current form. So, after the Congresswoman was mugged, chose that particular time, while bill was pending, for Cuba resolution. They can learn quick or slow, slow seems to be what they have picked for now.


DrunkWoodchuck t1_jbv0iuw wrote

> Also if you are right, do you anticipate a 4 year break from any legislation?

anything republicans can politicize is paused, practically guaranteed.

> If you're right should have gotten it to the Hill before the election.

Absolutely right, the council is not blameless in this. They took too long fucking around, now we're finding out.


AnonyJustAName t1_jbv3dbg wrote

Agree, mate.

I'm sure there are many non-controversial aspects of the bill that can be split off and passed.

After what happened re: Bowser being blocked from the floor back in January, it was insanity to send this up in the current form. Looking backwards and calling party leadership "naive" as one of the nicer terms, ain't it either. So odd for politicians to not see reading the room as an aspect of their jobs.

Same with running the city with a balanced budget. With schools facing cuts and everyone wanting to invest in root causes and kids, why focus on free bus fare when tradeoffs need to be made? They all act more like people at a think tank or uni than legislators.

And the sense of self importance is vast, when they are just one city council of tens of thousands of them in US.

Can't go back and undo it so best to move forward in a smart and strategic way.


theworldsucksbigA t1_jcbe350 wrote

>Whipping people up over something that is done is silly and serves no useful purpose but division and rumination.

Politics in a nutshell.


fvb955cd t1_jbvpxxe wrote

As a member of the Exotic Scold community, I must lodge my extraordinary approval of the congressional veto to protect our scolding from being legal for the untrained and uneducated masses.


toorigged2fail t1_jbtyl7d wrote

Can we use the fake milk law against whole foods for keeping soy milk in the same section as my moo cow fuck milk


OnlyHunan t1_jc2426v wrote

I'm half expecting to find milk "cocktail" on the shelf one of these days.