DC bill would pay people stipends not to commit crimes

Rate this post

Paying people not to commit crimes? Only the government can come up with that solution.
government solve all problems
The District of Columbia lawmakers are looking for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders. (I think punishment is a great deterrent, but that’s just me.)
The AP reports that the D.C. Council voted unanimously last Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. Apparently this is already happening in other cities as it’s based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.
Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.
Of course the bill doesn’t specify the value of the stipends. Heaven forbid one actually write a comprehensive bill! Those participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.

Kenyan McDuffie

Kenyan McDuffie

Democrat councilmember Kenyan McDuffie wrote the legislation. He said it was part of a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in the city, which experienced a 54 percent increase in homicides last year. Gee, I though their strict gun laws would have solved all the crime?
McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends “pales in comparison” to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender. “I want to prevent violent crime – particularly gun violence – by addressing the root causes and creating opportunities for people, particularly those individuals who are at the highest risks of offending,” McDuffie, a former prosecutor, said in a letter to constituents last week.
The Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program. And how much will this cost? Apparently $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments, according to the District’s independent chief financial officer. Without the mayor’s support, it would be up to the Council to find money for it through new taxes or cuts to existing programs. Participants in the program would remain anonymous. Its goal would be to recruit people who are at risk of violence but don’t have criminal cases pending.
The stats in the Richmond stipend program show that 79 percent of “fellows” participating in the program have not been suspected of involvement in any gun crimes since joining the program, and 84 percent have not been injured by gunfire, the program’s executive director, DeVone Boggan, said in a report to the Council. Richmond experienced a 77 percent drop in homicides between 2007, when the program was launched, and 2014. Here’s the kicker though: how much can be specifically attributed to the stipends is unclear.
The proposal in Washington has generated scant debate as lawmakers have focused on other crime-fighting tools included in the bill. Longtime civic activist Dorothy Brizill was the only person to testify against the stipend program at a lengthy hearing last fall, saying it would waste taxpayer dollars. “These incentive programs don’t work,” Brizill said.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “DC bill would pay people stipends not to commit crimes

  1. death penalty is better. no jails, no stipendums, no fiat money.

    • Only if you add to that No Endless Appeals of the death penalty.

      • ??? dead creatures do not make appeals. but then again it takes courage to do the right thing. when considering “officers of the law” this is difficult. my last wife spent 3months in USA and had 1declaration before leaving and never coming back, ” it is impossible to tell a cop from a criminal, they both exploit human depravity for a paycheck, none of them observe the constitutional law of the land, it is one big disorganize shite hole, where renters/illegals/welfare trash rule, there is no common sense, and all accept the situation as normal, thereby reinforcing the destruction of the constitution and descending into bestiality”.

  2. If D.C. were to give out stipends to known criminals , to not commit crime ….They would be broke in a year …435 House members…100 senators …9 S.C. ]clowns … Not to mention all the shills on K street

    • add congressmen, senators, commie pink Kenyan clan, the alphabet soup {cia/fbi/dea etc the scotus, maybe that is why they print all that worthless paper money? or is it for their illegal voters?

  3. Hey, how about this! Repeal NAFTA, GATT, etc. impose well-planned tariffs, get people back to work and paying taxes, thereby reducing the deficit and the increasing wealth of bankers from payoff of the national debt… Who could object to that, and why?

  4. Paying somebody not to commit crimes. Hmmmm…
    Sounds like a mafia protection racket.

  5. Reblogged this on necltr and commented:
    What will it be, paid idle hands with much free time, or pride in labor that provides income to support one’s family? Of course, that would require end to every nationally destructive legislation from NAFTA to GATT to TPP. Congress, take note.

  6. Strap on your seat belts, folks. This paying-criminals-not-to-commit-crimes will only get worse when, soon, robots will take over minimum-wage and other jobs.

  7. Pingback: DC bill would pay people stipends not to commit crimes – Patriots Feed

  8. Let me see if I understand this correctly . . . the smucks who obey the law and pay their taxes get to fund spending money to those who would otherwise be out doing crimes. Or the same smucks who pay their taxes pay the cost of jailing the criminals ( plus the cost of items stolen by criminals.) Some how I see that the group of smucks comes out on the loosing end in either of these scenarios. How about we reinstitute the “whipping post” whereby the thieves, and criminal element each gets a turn at the post . . . and we just cut the smucks out of the deal altogether, and they keep their own money!

  9. uh… So what happens if they don’t get their stipends on time?


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.