Post Reply Denver decriminalized Open defecation and other 'minor' crimes
Posted 6/7/17
http://www.9news.com/news/crime/certain-crimes-will-now-have-lighter-sentences-in-denver/442367895

This absolute madness is being passed to 'protect' immigrants from deportation if they repeatedly commit crimes.

Where were you when an American city intentionally passed laws to drag themselves into third world squalor? All in the name of 'progressiveness'


Posted 6/7/17
Are they having over-crowding issues? In my city similar problems the mayor and his stupid thinking does
early release.. but then those go on to commit similar or new crimes It's like a cycle.
Posted 6/7/17

MysteryMiss wrote:

Are they having over-crowding issues? In my city similar problems the mayor and his stupid thinking does
early release.. but then those go on to commit similar or new crimes It's like a cycle.


Seems that way, probably has something to do with people migrating there because of legal weed.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

http://www.9news.com/news/crime/certain-crimes-will-now-have-lighter-sentences-in-denver/442367895

This absolute madness is being passed to 'protect' immigrants from deportation if they repeatedly commit crimes.

Where were you when an American city intentionally passed laws to drag themselves into third world squalor? All in the name of 'progressiveness'




These sorts of crimes are difficult to prove, have low social impact/detriment, and prisons cost a fuckton.

It differentiates between "class 1" and "class 2" and the ones in question are "class 2" meaning social crimes...

You'd figure that people against "progressives" would be in favor of less government intervention....

(I'm not for people taking a crap in the streets mind you, but still.... and like what the article said, it's trying to not punish the homeless, and as another commenter stated, most influx there is probably for the legal weed (which I don't agree with either).
21651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
The crime for shitting on the street is picking up 100 lb's of shit off the street. I bet there will be no more shit on the streets in a month.
857 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17
If E. Coli wasn't a problem in Denver before, it may become one now. Probably not extreme, or anything, but I certainly imagine an increase in cases. Denver is big enough, and with a high enough population, that there's maybe a hundred or so assholes who'd shit in public for "funsies."
158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
Yeah, people aren't choosing to shit on the streets. Not unless they have no other option. San Francisco also has a major problem with public defecation because BART stations closed all their bathrooms because 'someone may use them to prepare for terrorism'. More than likely BART didn't want to pay for the upkeep.

San Francisco is a place where you can't afford to live unless you're making 6 figures and are prepared to live with roommates. How the fuck do major cities in the U.S. in the most prosperous time known to man fail to keep public bathrooms open.
mxdan 
10952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17
Do you guys really think there that without street shit laws there will be a huge influx of people shitting on the street? Really?

>__<
Posted 6/7/17

FootChar wrote:

Yeah, people aren't choosing to shit on the streets. Not unless they have no other option. San Francisco also has a major problem with public defecation because BART stations closed all their bathrooms because 'someone may use them to prepare for terrorism'. More than likely BART didn't want to pay for the upkeep.

San Francisco is a place where you can't afford to live unless you're making 6 figures and are prepared to live with roommates. How the fuck do major cities in the U.S. in the most prosperous time known to man fail to keep public bathrooms open.


If everyone else can hold it, so can some homeless person. I don't think this is just a homeless problem, but a cultural one too since the city is so concerned about immigrants being deported from repeated arrests. If it was just homeless problem they could just have portapotties or built public restrooms rather than decriminalize streetshitting altogether.



9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

If everyone else can hold it, so can some homeless person. I don't think this is just a homeless problem, but a cultural one too since the city is so concerned about immigrants being deported from repeated arrests. If it was just homeless problem they could just have portapotties or built public restrooms rather than decriminalize streetshitting altogether.



Have you even BEEN to San Francisco?

How bout NYC? Where they purposfully put GIANT SPIKES on water hydrants to deter people from sitting down.

I mean that's to deter terrorists too, amirite?

14900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
By looking at the laws impacted by this change, it is clear that this measure seeks to protect the homeless and reduce the cost of penalizing people for insignificant offenses. While I agree with that sentiment, more needs to be done to help the homeless community.

PS: These things are not being decriminalized, the sentences are just being reduced. They are still punishable by up to 60-days in jail.
Posted 6/7/17

serifsansserif wrote:

Have you even BEEN to San Francisco?

How bout NYC? Where they purposfully put GIANT SPIKES on water hydrants to deter people from sitting down.

I mean that's to deter terrorists too, amirite?



I've been to NYC and it was awful. I don't understand why people romanticize major cities. If spikes and other "hostile" architecture keep the homeless problem down in desirable areas, I don't see why you wouldn't use it.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:

Have you even BEEN to San Francisco?

How bout NYC? Where they purposfully put GIANT SPIKES on water hydrants to deter people from sitting down.

I mean that's to deter terrorists too, amirite?



I've been to NYC and it was awful. I don't understand why people romanticize major cities. If spikes and other "hostile" architecture keep the homeless problem down in desirable areas, I don't see why you wouldn't use it.


I live in Jersey. Worked in NYC for a part time job for a bit. Kind of indifferent to it, regarding the romanticizing. It's got its ups and downs, and compared to rural areas, it feels more "homey". If you're not a city person, it's hard to understand.

Outside of that... Perhaps its the idealization that cities are full of fantastic and amazing things. The things people might want. Whether it's to see Big Ben (an old clock) the Sistine Chapel (an old church) or Central Park (a giant park in the center of a crapton of buildings).

Some people dig the arts and entertainment scene and to some the idea of a city as something that "never sleeps" (they all do. NYC is about 2-3AM, Chicago was dead around 12pm, San Fran... Nobody seemed to be open before 10AM)...

Homelessness is an interesting problem. I believe it divorced from the problem of how expensive the cities are. Homeless people are somewhat migratory, and cities means lots of people which means better chance of getting food or money from said people, and tend to have more places to sleep or set up camp away from dangers (the woods are not your friends. Round here there's bears, the occasional wolf, and of course depending on the time of year, weather is a HUGE problem... particularly winter).

The expensive-ness comes from how densely packed they are and how desirable a location they are.

The homelessness situation is one people don't like to acknowledge, but at the same time, never gets enough funding. Also, paradoxically, the more resources a city devotes to the problem,the more homeless people flock to that area. (the other problem is that the money is typically used to address the symptoms of the problems rather than the source of the problem, so it's kinda a pointless waste of money. Not saying I want the homeless to stay homeless, but it's like trying to treat hair loss on a person dying of cancer.)

Anyhow, I just raise objection to people using "terrorism" as an excuse as to why these sorts of measures get ok'ed. I hate the fearmongering.
You must be logged in to post.