Oh boy the stranger staff is probably smelling their own farts real good today

Every misdemeanor must be prosecuted, mine were. I don't see what the issue is.

The vast majority of people in jail are there for violent crime. It's possible to recognize them as human beings and treat them with as much dignity as is reasonable, but incarcerated violent criminals are exactly where they belong. Unleashing them on the community would be cruel and wrong. It's the kind of idea that's so absurd that only very smart college-educated people are able to create rationalizations for it.

@6 - Then you don't dispute that the majority of people imprisoned are there for a violent offense? It is a fact, even by the website you cited, so it doesn't especially matter if you admit it or not, but I think it would be helpful if you did.

NTK and her ilk live in a fantasy land.

You want to completely abolish prison, like NTK does? Cool, where are we going to put all the violent criminals? Members of the KKK? Neo-Nazis? Serial killers?

You want to completely abolish police, like NTK does? Cool, so if I just come by your house with a gun, smash in your windows, and start taking your stuff for myself, what are you going to do about it? No police for you to call. I wouldn't even be charged with a crime.

You want to stop prosecuting misdemeanors? Cool, you know that means you're no longer going to punish DUIs, domestic violence, assault, stalking, sexual harassment, virtually all theft and property crime, and so on, right?

Like, they want you to think that everyone in prison is there for jaywalking and the city attorney's office is just prosecuting a bunch of pot smokers. But that's an obscene lie. It's completely divorced from reality. And that lie is the foundation of their entire worldview. Our newly-defunded police force is stretched so thin that they're not even investigating auto theft anymore. But you think they're spending all their time catching jaywalkers?

It really is disgraceful that The Stranger is backing her. There's truly no depths to which The Stranger won't sink to try and be the world's edgiest newsweekly.

@10 you hit the nail on the head. The Stranger has come to define the left wing of Seattle but their choice of the most radical candidate backfired back in 2017 and now quite possibly it will blow up in their face again. Instead of using their voice to promote a candidate like Brianna Thomas or Colleen Echohawk who could move move the city to the left while still being effecting they are promoting candidates in low turnout primaries who will most likely get their ass handed to them in the general. There is a great write up about this in Post Alley: https://www.postalley.org/2021/07/16/stranger-and-stranger-seattles-only-newspapers-endorsements/

From the article. "This year, I learn from talks with Stranger sources, the endorsement discussion did not want to make the same mistake it did four years ago in endorsing Cary Moon for mayor. After the Stranger endorsement, Moon surprisingly shot into second place in the primary, only to be defeated convincingly by business-and-labor-backed Jenny Durkan, whom the paper came to hate for her center-left politics. That Moon episode, said editor Chase Burns, “looms over us,” but it also created the urban legend that as goes the Stranger, so goes the Seattle primary election."

The irony here is they may actually shift the city to the right because Thomas-Kennedy, Oliver and Gonzales are unlikely to draw enough votes from the other candidates. It's sad because The Stranger has influence and they choose to piss that away being cool and anti capitalist instead of using that to actually help people. Great job dumbasses.

@8: Ignoring for a moment that States have spent the last 3 decades moving crimes like illegal gun ownership and home burglaries from the non-violent to violent category in order to bolster their prison population to provide slave labor to private companies who refuse to pay their employees a living wage:

https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-hiring-prisoners-instead-of-raising-wages-critics-say-report-2021-7?op=1

Even if we ignore all that and take the numbers as is, you seem to be arguing that it's OK to incarcerate about 1 million non-violent criminals each year because we are also incarcerating 1.2 million violent criminals under our expanded definition of violent crime.

I like peanut butter, do you ski? How exactly are you using our high rate of incarceration for violent crime to justify our high rate for non-violent crime?

And make no mistake, the US has the worst clearance rates for catching truly violent criminals in the western world. So you ask, how do we maintain the worlds largest prison population when we suck at catching actual violent criminals? The answer is that we lock people up for an insane amount of time, which does nothing to detour or reduce crime, but does ensure a massive prison building operation, endless slave labor for the private sector and provide extremely expensive end of like care to thousands of criminals who committed a violent crime 40, 50, 60 years ago.

The evidence is clear that long sentences don't deter violent crime, but the likelihood of getting caught does. But assholes who don't actually care about public safety spend all their time pushing for longer sentences and more incarceration without doing anything to fix the most incompetent police force in the Western World when it comes to actually catching criminals. In America we only police some of the people some of the time and others not at all. It's a recipe for ensuring no reduction in crime as it relates to incarceration.

If you cared about public safety as you pretend to, you would spend less time explaining why it is OK to lock up 1 million non-violent criminals because we also get 1.2 million violent criminals and more time finding out why the police refuse to do their fucking job.

@9: And hopefully the results in the City Attorney race will embolden some Democratic Attorney in the mold of Kamala Harris"

"Kamala is most unpopular VP in 60 years: poll"
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/kamala-is-most-unpopular-vp-in-60-years-poll/

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew you were an asshole, but who knew you had a sense of humor too?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@10: "Cool, where are we going to put all the violent criminals? Members of the KKK? Neo-Nazis? Serial killers?

Well, most of our violent criminals, members of the KKK, Neo-Nazis and Serial killers work for law enforcement, so the question going to you, what should we do with them all?

We just exited a 30-40 year war on crime that drove mass incarceration through the roof. Are you arguing that the Seattle Downtown is in better shape now than it was 40 years ago before they started locking up every minority the police could get their hands on? Sure, 40 years of incarceration had made the situation worse, so they solution is clearly to further increase incarceration.

It frightens me that you're allowed to vote.

@15 just used my tiem musheen to go back to the 80s. Here's my report:
Seattleites are in shock over the recent murders of two Filipino labor activists in Pioneer Square. They were trying to reform the corrupt International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and fight for better worker conditions.
Four people connected to the crime were sentenced to life in prison. Two cannery workers, a street gang leader, and the Local 37 union president. It is even suspected that the Philippine president, Ferdinand Marcos, and his wife ordered the murders.

...that is just so Seattle. Charles should turn it into a movie.

@16 ok I lied, I don't really have time travel technology. here is the source, because it's interesting Seattle history:
https://www.seattlestar.net/2016/06/june-1-1981-domingo-and-viernes/

before anyone berates me for some perceived misdeed, let it be known that I was just posting the story because it was interesting, not to give weight to any argument for or against prison.

@15 yes, I've heard that cheap little applause line many times before, and I'm sure we'll hear it many more times in this race.

Let me know when you want to come back to reality, where our city's neo-Nazis and violent criminals are not, in fact, all members of the SPD.

@19: Well, the 6 members of the SPD who stormed the capital to overturn the election all came from SPD and represented the largest contingent of law enforcement in the US by far. How many non SPD members from the Seattle area where involved in that riot on the Capital?

The last serial killer we caught was the Golden State Killer. Care to guess his profession?

Not every violent criminal is a member of law enforcement, but law enforcement does have an unusually high number of criminals who have no respect for the law. The fact that the criminal element within the SPD supports Davison is not a good sign.

Just a few recent examples among many:

Philly’s murder exonerations raise questions about decades of homicide investigations — and whether the misconduct alleged in those cases was part of a pattern that led to many more wrongful convictions.
https://www.inquirer.com/crime/a/philadelphia-murder-exonerations-wrongful-convictions-20210507.html

Philly cops have been towing cars from legal spaces to illegal spaces, impounded the cars from the illegal spaces, and then trying to sell the cars at auction.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/towing-philadelphia-parking-authority-nightmare-20210319.html

Police Are Telling ShotSpotter to Alter Evidence From Gunshot-Detecting AI
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai

The pattern here is clear. The police may not be good at catching criminals, but their experts at altering evidence to invent criminals out of the innocent who are in the wrong place and belong to the wrong sub-group.

Just because violence and crime involves the police does not make it invisible. You should ask yourself why this contingent supports Davison.

@12: "...moving crimes like illegal gun ownership and home burglaries from the non-violent to violent category..."

Not for the (tiresomely predictable) reason you gave, but because those 'non-violent' crimes can quickly become fatally violent, e.g. if a resident confronts an armed burglar. (In a country as saturated with gun violence as the United States, you still seem to believe we shouldn't be locking criminals in cages on weapons charges.)

@14: '"Kamala is most unpopular VP in 60 years: poll"'

So, you're openly cheering racism and sexism now? Good to know. (It fits with your earlier complaints, that female prosecutors have been locking up gosh darned too many men on pesky domestic violence convictions.)

While the popularity rating of the US Vice President may, in your mind, be a vital indicator for quality of Life In These United States, I'm still not exactly sure how her popularity rating as VP relates to her past performance at the local level. (If you were still Luddite 5, you could sum it up on one word: "Defund.")

@15: "Are you arguing that the Seattle Downtown is in better shape now than it was 40 years ago ..."?

A friend of mine grew up in Seattle. She told me how forty years ago, a woman did not walk west of 4th Avenue in the daylight, and downtown was an abandoned wasteland after dark. Thirty years ago, when I moved to Belltown, both it and downtown were in slightly better condition. Even after COVID and the latest round of window-smashing 'protests,' modern downtown looks a lot better than it did back then. I don't believe incarceration of non-violent offenders on drugs charges had anything to do with the vast improvements in downtown over the last forty years, but to claim downtown hasn't improved over that time is just showing your ignorance.

(The one way in which downtown looks worse is in the illegal encampments, but if we elect a City Attorney who will actually enforce our health and safety laws against camping on public property, that should clear out our sidewalks and parks.)

Abolitionist. That is very funny. And people wonder why the average person is repulsed by the rhetoric of leftists, even though the average person may agree with some of their policies.

@16: You avoided my question. I did not ask about the level of violent crime compared to 40 years ago, I asked if downtown Seattle looks better now than in did 40 years ago since the law and order crowd here spends far more time using things like homeless, drug use and theft in Seattle to justify more incarceration. It's pretty clear what they miss is the war on lifestyle crimes. You're shifting the topic to serious violent crime, which is a more interesting question.

No question violent crimes was higher from 1980 through 1990 nationwide than after that time before starting a multi-decade drop with less than half the violent crime as of 2019 than we had in 1991. From 1980 until around 2000 there is some correlation between incarceration and a reduction in violent crime, but after 2000 as incarceration increasingly shifted to lifestyle crimes and in the case of violent crime the sentences became exponentially longer the link between incarceration and violent crime reduction ended and in some neighborhoods reversed.

https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox_02.pdf

The data suggests that some incarceration leads to more public safety. Past a certain point it destroys lives without improving public safety and beyond that point actually creates more crime by increased one parent homes and devastating the community connections that actually work to reduce violent crime. We past into this 3rd category around 2000 and haven't looked back until just recently. The damage will take time to fix, but more of what lead to where we are is certainly no solution despite Davison proposing just that.

There are many theories why crime spiked from 1980 to 1990, but one that comes up frequently was the high percentage of young people during that time, which no longer exists. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by young men in their 20's and despite the common narrative of black men attacking innocent white women so popular in the media and crime drama copoganda, the most common victims and perpetrators of violent crime are black males, the majority of who don't call law enforcement when they experience crime because they are often on both sides of the equation and no law enforcement only makes things worse.

That's why it's a myth to argue we need to incarcerate the criminals to save the victims. They are overwhelmingly the same people and for the past 20 years we have damaged the victims in our effort to punish the perpetrators since they are the same. Our problem is that we ignore them as victims and punish them as criminals. It's not a crazy proposal NTK is making after years of dealing with them as a defense attorney to argue that if we address the victim of crime, that will reduce the number who go on to become criminals.

Look at domestic violence, which occurs in equal amounts between men and women. The VAWA passed in 1994 as part of the Crime Bill made incarceration the only response and led to an explosion in female incarceration while doing little to reduce domestic violence or keep victims safe. Why would we want to do more of what has not worked?

NTK has made it clear she will still prosecute DUI's despite the claim of some moron in an earlier post because that has been shown to actually reduce death, but most of the other misdemeanors are enforced primarily against the poor and not only don't reduce crime, but seems to exacerbate it. As for the idiot claims like "what will we do about serial killers" that is handled at the county level and I defy you to show me a single example where they turned a serial killer loose.

Interesting, there need to enforce petty misdemeanors has often hurt their ability to catch serial killers. With people like the Green River Killer, sex workers and business owners knew who he was and told the police repeatedly, but many were unwilling to come forward for fear they would be arrested for prostitution and those who did were not taken seriously since they were considered criminals.

@21: Tensor! Well, I see you're using your tensor account today. I wish one of your accounts made a lick of sense. Maybe you can get a women in your life to help one of them make sense if they will have anything to do with you.

Oh, where to begin with our misguided authoritarian troll.

"Not for the (tiresomely predictable) reason you gave, but because those 'non-violent' crimes can quickly become fatally violent, e.g. if a resident confronts an armed burglar. (In a country as saturated with gun violence as the United States, you still seem to believe we shouldn't be locking criminals in cages on weapons charges.)"

Your argument is that we need to make non-violent crimes violent because they may lead to violent crimes. Great, the impetus for the war on drugs and every other bullshit reason to promote mass incarceration. We must treat non-violent crime as violent because it could lead to violence. Do I really need to explain that by it's very logic that ignores the distinction between violent and non-violent crime by defining it all as violent crime even when no victim is involved, which is obviously the non-moron definition of violent crime? The thing is, we already have a way of dealing with crime when it turns violent, which is charging them with violent crime. The increasing practice of defining non-violent crime as violent to jack up incarceration rates while doing nothing to reduce burglary is tensor level stupid and by your moronic logic, erases the distinction between violent and non-violent crime. The grown ups in the room generally think of violent crime and involving the victim. You should discuss this with them if you remain confused.

All this fails to address your ongoing reading comprehension problem. We were discussing the percentage of violent criminals who are incarcerated. The point was that many of them are there for victimless violent crime, so those numbers don't mean what he thinks they mean. If you could keep up it would require a lot less typing on my part. I know that's impossible, but I can dream.

While the popularity rating of the US Vice President may, in your mind, be a vital indicator for quality of Life In These United States, I'm still not exactly sure how her popularity rating as VP relates to her past performance at the local level."

We are running into your reading comprehension problem again. This was a response to the idea a Kamala Harris type prosecutor might replace Dan Satterberg at election time. You and I can debate why her approval is so low, but the idea that a politician so unpopular would replace Dan Satterberg in an election is laughable. You chose to make it about race and sex because you're an open bigot and a sexist, but it was a political observation you would understand if you could move beyond your obsession with identity politics.

"(It fits with your earlier complaints, that female prosecutors have been locking up gosh darned too many men on pesky domestic violence convictions.)"

Maybe it's head trauma or too much drink on your part, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. Domestic violence is an equal opportunity crime and the overwhelming number of prosecutors in the US are white males, to include the current DA of both Seattle and King County. Where did your weird obsession with "female prosecutors" come from? Especially when you oppose and I support the one female DA in the Seattle race? Your bigotry against NTK doesn't make other people a bigot.

I do think, based on the data, that the tough on crime incarceration first strategy for domestic violence you suggest has failed as even those within the criminal system are increasingly acknowledging by offering alternatives in the form of domestic violence court. You don't want to hear this because you are always stuck in 1980 and think incarceration magically fixes everything, but treating domestic violence as exclusively a criminal act has increased the female prison population and hurt the victims you don't care about unless they support your incarceration first strategy. My primary opposition to your incarceration first strategy is that it hurts the vulnerable women you pretend to care about, who often want a solution other than incarceration that is taken out of their hands by the criminal system by what is often a white male DA that would not need mentioning if you were not absolutely obsessed with the gender of who is in the prosecutors office. It does leave one to speculate on your relationship with the women in your life. You know, women are not the enemy you make them out to be.

I answered the rest of your stream of consciousness stupidity in @23. You seem to be confused on the same point @16 was, although he's usually pretty good at following the lede. I have a hard time remembering you had the topic right. I don't mind the debate, but could you start doubling checking what you are responding too in order to stay on topic?

@23 I just thought it was a cool story (bro) from 40 years ago. pls see next post where I state don't drag this into your arguments lol. legit it's one of the first stories that came up when I typed 'Seattle news 1981', that's it. I was thinking I would find something cool about the World's Fair, but I was off on that by like 20 years...oof.

@25: I got your point, but we always need to dumb things down for the tensor's in the group. You can see where be inevitably took things @ 21. Consider my response for his education more than your comment.

To your point, this is the media we are talking about. They have been selling fear about crime since before the war between the Mods and the Rockers became a thing in the spring of 1964. That it was the first thing to come up does not surprise me at all. Fear sells.

People seem to be confusing misdemeanor prosecution (which the City Attorney has jurisdiction over) with the kind of felonies that are filling up our prisons (which he/she does not). Whether or not we are locking up too many people for years for things like drug offenses has little to do with whether we prosecute shoplifting, 4th Deg. Assault, Criminal Trespass etc. (which are misdemeanors and which the City does prosecute or not). Most people don't spend any real time in jail for those things unless they are making a career out of it, in which case maybe they should be sent off for a bit.

If NKT is elected, any decisions not to prosecute would be limited to the misdemeanor category. She would not affect felony prosecutions or sentences. Having said that, I believe that a blanket refusal to prosecute, say, shoplifting will lead to major problems. Retail owners would have little choice but to hire more aggressive security (I suppose technically they would have the choice to let anyone who wants to load up their cart and not pay) in order to stay in business. Do you think that those hired security staff are going to pat the shoplifters on the head and give them a sandwich? More likely we're going to have a whole bunch of suspected shoplifters missing teeth because the private security won't have any other real way to deter theft.

One reason we set up police forces is to avoid people resorting to "self-help" which in practice will become violence. Doesn't mean we should let the police themselves become violent but do we really want storeowners, homeowners, etc. arming up to protect themselves?

And if you want to argue that all of the thieves and shoplifters are merely trying to get some lunch and it's NBD, I have a cracked and useless West Seattle Bridge to sell you. Check out the recent accounts of drugstores closing in SF due to unsustainable shoplifting losses. See, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-francisco-shoplifting-walgreens-closing-b1852470.html That's not good for a city.

@21: Oh, I missed one. You must admit, there's no much stupid and gas lighting in any post no you make it's hard to respond to eveyrthing:

"In a country as saturated with gun violence as the United States, you still seem to believe we shouldn't be locking criminals in cages on weapons charges."

I think you remain as confused as always. In a country filled with people actually murdering people with guns, you want to prioritize resources towards locking up people with illegal guns who have not actually shot anyone.

The clearance rate of murder in America it shit and Seattle is no different. A recent story from Chicago who had a bigger problem than we do:

"Over 1,000 victims, 126 dead, just 2 convictions: 6 years of mass shootings in Chicago"
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/8/2/22559312/mass-shooting-victims-gun-violence-crime-cpd-police-department-clearance-murder-arrest

I would argue the police should put their resources into arresting the 90% of criminals who currently get a free pass when they commit murder with a gun.

Your argument, and I believe the police union is with you on this, is that we need to stop wasting our resources on finding and arresting the 90% of murders who got a free pass and instead pour all our efforts into arresting non violent criminals who have an illegal gun due to something like prior drug felony. Your argument is essentially if we ignore violent crime and instead focus on the potential for crime that will solve the problem.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I'm sure you will win the murderer constituent by making them a lower priority than non violent illegal gun owners, your performative law and order bullshit does nothing to help the actual victims of the violent crime you feel are a lower priority then the "well it could become violent" pre violent crowd you're obsessed with.

Why do I get the feeling when everyone else was laughing at Reefer Madness, you were taking notes and believing the gateway argument makes sense. It does, if your goal is to ignore actually crime by prioritizing potential crime as you suggest.

Sure, let's lock up the guy with a previous drug felony who has a gun for 50 years. That will teach the 90% of people who murdered someone with a gun and get away with it that crime doesn't pay!

@24: " Tensor! Well, I see you're using your tensor account today."

And I see Luddite 5 is still dead. (Looks like you've defund-ed that one permanently, eh?)

What other accounts do you think I have here? Please name them, and give the reason you believe I write under each of them.

"Your argument is that we need to make non-violent crimes violent because they may lead to violent crimes."

Yes, I gave an example of two such non-violent crimes escalating into one violent crime. Had you actually addressed my example somewhere in your otherwise lengthy and irrelevant non-response, instead of wrongly implying I'd advocated for treating all non-violent crimes as violent crimes, then we could have examined why certain non-violent crimes should be treated the same as violent ones. Instead, you started talking about non-violent drug crimes, which shouldn't even be crimes at all. Please do try harder with the reading next time. (Try hard enough, enough times, and It might even begin to make you look like more of a 'non-moron.')

"This was a response to the idea a Kamala Harris type prosecutor might replace Dan Satterberg at election time. You and I can debate why her approval is so low, but the idea that a politician so unpopular would replace Dan Satterberg in an election is laughable."

So, your argument claims voters Seattle can't elect a prosecutor anything like Kamala Harris once was in San Francisco, because some people in Mississippi don't highly approve of VP Harris? (OK, I'll admit, that's a lot more sense than you've made of late.)

And I certainly believe the reason her oh-so-important approval ratings are so low has much to do with her status as the highest-ranking woman of color in American history. Sure, you might riposte that only a bigot could ever possibly hope to think of bigotry as a reason, but that would merely make you look even more like a moron than you already do. (Good thing you didn't go there, eh? Wait, what?)

"... I have no idea what you are talking about here."

"Simply locking primarily black men in cages may satisfy the emotional needs of primarily white female prosecutors who run domestic violence divisions," https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/05/24/57632886/defense-attorney-challenging-pete-holmes-vows-not-to-prosecute-almost-all-misdemeanors/comments/11

The real problem here isn't (mostly) men beating and killing (mostly) women; it's those overwrought, emotional white women prosecutors. While I can understand why you would want to run far, far away from those words, after your miserable failure at running away from your words as Luddite 5, you might have considered not doubling down on the stupidity by trying to run away from your words under your current account -- but hey, you gotta be you. (Sorry about that last part.)

As you seem confused on this point, domestic violence crimes are actually, um, violent crimes, and we have learned from bitter history that not physically separating the abuser from the abused can lead to an escalation of abuse. Hence our policy of locking violent abusers in cages, because persons who do not refrain from using violence against innocent persons should, in fact, be locked in cages.

We've also learned, that as a set of crimes which can escalate, domestic violence should have intervention at misdemeanor levels before it can escalate. Therefore, voting for a City Attorney who seems not to want to prosecute domestic violence at the misdemeanor level could cause an increase in felony domestic violence assaults. Once again, that would be an increase in violent crimes, and I do hope you can get over your fear of emotional white women long enough to agree that we should lock violent criminals in cages.

@22: Abolitionist. On the same level as a dragon slayer.

Have you seen any dragons lately? No? Mission accomplished!

Can we at least still jail Dr. Nelson Salim?

@29: "And I see Luddite 5 is still dead. "

Nope, still here. Lost access to my account email as I have mentioned more than once, created a new account and was pretty open about the change. I do find it entertaining that being the drama queen you are you try to spin that into some Qanon level conspiracy. I would tell you to get a life, but sadly I think it's too late for you.

Why are you reluctant to admit to your other accounts here I have already identified? No one takes tensor seriously. Who do you imagine multiple accounts will somehow improve your lack of credibility?

"Yes, I gave an example of two such non-violent crimes escalating into one violent crime. "

Wow. two whole examples in a country of 330 million people and you think we should base policy on that?

So you think your 2 anecdote qualify as credible data? I know 3 people who used a knife to make dinner and then stabbed someone. In your idiot universe, does that mean we should make owning a knife a violent crime and include that as violent crime when measuring the cause of incarceration? The point you still can't grasp, when we are talking about violent felons in prison, we should not count everyone who owned a knife as a violent felon in the same category as people who actually stabbed someone with a knife. This is where I would normally ask if you are that stupid, but you have repeatedly answered that question in your posts.

Violent crime has a victim, non-violent crime does not. You argue people who own guns illegally or commit burglary should be a greater priority than people who actually murder people with guns and commit armed robbery. When you take murder as seriously as illegal gun ownership I will take you seriously. Until then, you are just another joke making excuses for the failures of the police.

"And I certainly believe the reason her oh-so-important approval ratings are so low has much to do with her status as the highest-ranking woman of color in American history."

I was making an argument about her electability in King County and you chose to make it about sex and race. this from the guy who has constantly attacked CM Sawant and more recently NTK. Do you really want to be the person who makes the argument that claiming a women could not be elected in King County due to low polling numbers is a sign of misogyny and racism given all the horse shit you have piled on CM Sawant? By that definition of racism and misogamy, high kettle, meet black.

"... I have no idea what you are talking about here."

I had no idea because I didn't imagine you would take 2 sentences out of context when I was referring specifically a book on carceral feminism that provides the numbers to support that point. Here's the full quote with the citations you left out:

"domestic violence is a serious issue, but the criminalization model has failed badly over the past 3 decades at reducing domestic violence. If anything it has created more domestic violence by increasing all the systemic problems that led to it in the first place.

Domestic violence is a symptom of underlying issues. The most effective way to address domestic violence is to address its root causes. Simply locking primarily black men in cages may satisfy the emotional needs of primarily white female prosecutors who run domestic violence divisions, but it has drawn ire from the black women who suffer the consequences of the incarceration first strategy.

Two excellent sources in this issue:

The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women's Liberation in Mass Incarceration
Aya Gruber
https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-War-Crime-Unexpected-Incarceration/dp/0520304519

Loving Men, Respecting Women:
by Tim Goldich and Warren Farrell Ph.D.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Warren+Farrell+PhD&text=Warren+Farrell+PhD&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books"

You are often accused gas lighting here, but I generously assume you simply aren't bright enough to digest full thoughts and this quote you took out of context seems to support that.

"As you seem confused on this point, domestic violence crimes are actually, um, violent crimes, and we have learned from bitter history that not physically separating the abuser from the abused can lead to an escalation of abuse."

"We have learned" Do you have any data to support what "we have learned?" Of course not, because it's more bullshit and failed policy, which is why many prosecutors are now trying to reverse the damage that policy created by offering domestic violence courts as an alternative to blanket separation and incarceration. I know you your entire opinion on crime is based on anecdotes and "your thoughts," but here's a book on how separation through incarceration has led to more violence and worse outcomes over the past 30 years.Trigger warning, the author provides large data over 30 years to support this opinion. I know in your world that can't complete with your "we have learned" opinions,. but that's how the rest of the world works:

Loving Men, Respecting Women:
by Tim Goldich and Warren Farrell Ph.D.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Warren+Farrell+PhD&text=Warren+Farrell+PhD&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books"

I know you won't read it because it provides data and you only do anecdotes. It's actually pretty amazing to look over your posting history and realize that it's all unfounded personal opinion have nothing to support all the bullshit conclusions you pull out of your ass.You obviously feel strongly about the topic of criminal justice. Why not read a book on the topic and not base your opinions on reruns of COPS?

"Hence our policy of locking violent abusers in cages, because persons who do not refrain from using violence against innocent persons should, in fact, be locked in cages."

The problem with your immature understanding of "law and order" is that criminals and victims are usually the same people and that is true of domestic violence as well. The data in all the studies you don't read show both members in a relationship are physically violent and while locking up women has proven to be a great way to grow the female prison population, is has done nothing to reduce domestic violence. Here's more sources on the topic of domestic violence you will never read, because you have anecdotes to support your Lifetime channel view of domestic violence:

The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women's Liberation in Mass Incarceration
Aya Gruber
https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-War-Crime-Unexpected-Incarceration/dp/0520304519

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/

"When physical aggression is the subject of inquiry, studies consistently find that as many women self-report perpetrating this behavior as do men; some studies find a higher prevalence of physical aggression committed by women (for a review see Archer, 2000). For example, the National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1990), a nationally representative study of 6,002 men and women, found that in the year before the survey, 12.4% of wives self-reported that they used violence against their husbands compared to 11.6% of husbands who self-reported using violence against their wives. Furthermore, 4.8% of wives reported using severe violence against their husbands, whereas 3.4% of husbands reported using severe violence (Straus & Gelles, 1990). Studies with college samples also find that men and women commit similar rates of physical aggression (Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005) or that a higher prevalence of women commit physical aggression (Straus, 2004).

"We've also learned, that as a set of crimes which can escalate, domestic violence should have intervention at misdemeanor levels before it can escalate. Therefore, voting for a City Attorney who seems not to want to prosecute domestic violence at the misdemeanor level could cause an increase in felony domestic violence assaults. "

I know this is a losing cause since you have anecdotes and all I can provide is the study above of roughly 7,000 couples, but your "we have found" literally pulled out of your ass without anything to support it is why you are consistently misguided on topics like this. Do you have any data to support that separation and incarceration improves the situation? Of course not. Let me guess, one of your cop friends gave you 1-2 anecdotes and now you wander through life like some idiot presenting that as actual evidence?

I know this will be hard for you, but when you respond, could you give more than your "well that's what I learned in high school gym" opinion on things? When I make a statement, I provide sources and data. You come back with "I have an anecdote!" That's not really an argument. It's simply a bias you have arrived at because of your inability to research the topic. No one really cares what you think when your thinking is consistently proven to be wrong. I am obviously not the first person to tell you this, so perhaps you should start listening. Give us something to support your claims. The trouble for you is that there is nothing to support your claims, but what does that tell everyone but you?

@30: "who don't mind victimizing people for personal gain no matter what their current situation"

These people can be found throughout any cross section of society. They can be investment brokers, relieving the wealthy of their money. Or street people with iron pipes absconding with your wallet. It's all a matter of opportunity.

Personally, I prefer a society with enough income inequality to keep a large group of these sociopaths preying on yacht owners in the Bahamas. Bring everyone to the same level and the evil ones will be waiting in an alley with a club for you and me to walk by.