I know Some fine Democrats got some gruff for this but can we all now agree

[cinematicdiversions]

There really are superpredators like Darrell E Brooks ( Waukesha Christmas parade massacre. Dozens of other assaults and rapes of children and young adults of color.)

And sometimes we need to take a serious look at a justice system that allows bail and early release for such individuals. The vast majority of crime is committed by very few people that destroy hundreds of lives each.

[denbot]

1. F.Y. and your "super predator" bullshit.

Your time here is growing short me thinks...

[cinematicdiversions]

2. So what do you call a man who beats and rapes woman and children by the score?

Why not just admit there are criminals that cause an outsized level of harm. Why defend rapists and murderers. Wouldn't our communities be better off without such individuals plying thier trade?

The p[roblem is not that he belongs in prison after murdering grandmothers and children.

The problem is he belonged in prison after raping a child and singing a rap song about it.

[denbot]

3. Was Kyle Rittonhouse a..

Oh wait, he is the type who throws terms like super predator around, never mind...

[cinematicdiversions]

4. The term is from the 1994 crime bill. I don't think Kyle was alive.

Honestly, the democrats back then (Including our current President) were not afraid to stand up to special interests and were able to respond to a great unease among the general populace due to the out-of-control crime issue. (Which in all fairness was much worse then it is now in most places.)

[denbot]

7. Yet you decided to breathe life back into the term. What, the "N" word to obvious?

I'm done with you.

[cinematicdiversions]

8. Denbot I hate to break it to you but criminals come in all colors and sexes

this has nothing to do with race. Nothing at all.

Perhaps people who assault other people should be in jail is not a racist statement.

[dpibel]

11. You don't know the history of "superpredators"?

Apparently you don't.

You should check it out. It would help your credibility.

Well, that could be overpromising.

[denbot]

19. He does, and it is intentional.

'Nuff said.

[betsuni]

22. No. The word was coined by John Dilulio in his 1995 essay, "The Coming of the Super-Predators"

"Dilulio acknowledged the problem [gang violence] was worse for inner-city Black communities. But he also pointed out that there were 200 Latino gangs in L.A. and that some White working-class fathers in Philadelphia were asking their district attorney what she was 'going to do to control their children.' I cannot find any evidence of anyone using the term as a code word for Blacks in general or even the Black children or violent Black children."

Steven Stoft

The word has nothing to do with race. Was used as an anti-Democratic attack to make Democrats seem racist and suppress the vote. As I'm sure you know.

[cinematicdiversions]

23. Fair enough I thought it predated the bill.

I am well aware that it is not a racist term and that false meme was used to attack Hillary Clinton in 16.

It is some of the other posters sbove, who I am sure mean well, are repeating this tired canard against democrats.

[Celerity]

13. +100

Windowpane.

[RockRaven]

5. The "vast majority" of crime is NOT committed by "very few people"

Learn this lesson from this sad example, my children: innumeracy is a helluva drug.

[cinematicdiversions]

6. Actually repeat criminals are responsible for the vast majority of offenses.

There have been cases (for example a famous one in the meatpacking district in the late nineties) where the arrest and incarceration of a few individuals dropped crime rates by the double digits in the areas where they lived.

Few people commit a rape at knifepoint and then go the rest of their lives as upstanding citizens. They tend to be repeat offenders with multiple victims.

[RockRaven]

10. No, no, no. No shifting of goalposts. Vast majority, very few people, you said.

"Repeat offenders" is not an interchangable synonym of "very few people."

And even if it were, you said "commit" not "are arrested for" or "are charged with" or "are convicted of." You recognize how many committed crimes go unaddressed by the criminal justice system in any way, right?

[cinematicdiversions]

12. No goalposts have been moved.

A small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of serious crimes.

I think the studies bear that out overall.

[RockRaven]

15. Now "crimes" becomes "serious crimes" and you say you aren't moving goalposts?

"Serious crimes" is whatever you say is serious, I suppose. Convenient, that.

I'm done. Have a nice evening.

[cinematicdiversions]

17. Well I am not talking about traffic tickets, pot smoking or Check Kiting here

You know rape, murder, B and E's that kind of thing.

This is not a hard concept and it is backed up by facts. Why the hesitancy to entertaining the fact that career criminals are responsible for crime.

[dpibel]

18. "I think the studies"

How about "here are the studies"?

Cuz I don't see any very good reason to pay much attention to what you think the studies bear out.

You got studies? Let's see 'em.

[cinematicdiversions]

20. Here is just one that focuses on first degree murder convictions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X19300555

On one hand, criminal careers usually progress in non-linear ways where a blend of violent and non-violent, serious and unserious offense behaviors occur—often in intermittent and unpredictable ways. This is particularly the case when examining the criminal careers of homicide offenders [11,[31], [32], [33], [34], [35]] individuals whose lives are often chaotic and characterized by disconnectedness from social institutions [36,37]. For this reason, it is often difficult to predict the most serious forms of violence, such as various specifications of homicide. On the other hand, forensic research has shown that prior involvement in homicide offending dramatically and at times exponentially increases the likelihood of subsequent homicide offending [4,38]. The current findings are supportive of work that has demonstrated continuity in homicide offending. In six of the nine regression models, prior 1st degree murder was significantly associated with current homicide offending, and a seventh association was nearly significant (p 

[dpibel]

21. Reasonable try, but still a fail

That's a study about the risk of reoffense after a 1st degree murder conviction.

It says absolutely nothing to support the proposition that "A small number of people are responsible for the vast majority of serious crimes."

[dpibel]

9. "hundreds of lives each"?

Could you provide just the tiniest smidge of actual data (not "there was this time in the meatpacking plants, y'know"--that's anecdote, and we're supposed to take your word for it at that) in support of this pretty wild claim?

You'd almost think that all of us would know right away about these very few people and the hundreds of lives they have destroyed.

I, for one, don't.

I, for one, think you're talking through your hat.

[cinematicdiversions]

14. Yeah hundreds of lives.

Take one of the woman he raped. That woman has loved ones perhaps children. Co-workers and neighbors. Then there are all the people in the area who feel less save knowing he is back on the street looking for a new victim. One rape can effct a hundred people. One rape can effect a community.

Now times that by the dozens of assaults he has committed... and he is still free to kill.

[dpibel]

16. You have a rather broad definition of "destroy"

Your hyperventilative OP says "destroy." Not "can effct [sic]."

You can, I trust, see that there are orders of magnitude separating the two?

Not sure what set you off, exactly, but you've really overstated your case and you're demonstrating nothing in the discussion beyond your stubbornness and weak skills at deflecting, redefining, and diverting.

[leftstreet]

24. Can't believe I'm reading "superpredators" on DU n/t

[Bucky]

25. Well this is an interesting bit of Hysteria

What happened in waukesha's horrifying and discussed. I can understand someone being freaked out by the brutality of what that driver did.

Once we get over the shock of it, maybe we can go back to having serious conversations about crime and criminal justice

[radius777]

26. Brooks appears to be a troubled individual who

society failed to help or reform in any meaningful way. Whites with troubles often are shown empathy, whereas blacks/browns generally are not. Once a person gets caught up in the system they become ostracized (by employers, society, etc) and sink deeper into a life of crime.

When it comes to whites our system works overtime to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Look at how the terrorist Rittenhouse was treated with kid gloves. Look at the short sentences many of the insurrectionists are getting (if they get any time at all).

Yet when blacks and browns commit crimes, even minor ones, they are thrown into the meatgrinder of the system, with little concern for their wellbeing or humanity. "Personal accountability" is then what whites will say in response, a standard they themselves are not held to.

[jimfields33]

27. He was give a thousand dollar bail.

You don’t consider that kids glove? Wow!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

29. No. Fuck that racist bullshit.

[Greybnk48]

30. To quote Chris Rock: "Whatever happened to "Just plain crazy?'"

This guy is nuts, and he's a dangerous nut. Black, brown, red, yellow, WHITE. He's mentally ill and dangerous. We used to call someone like this a "homocidal maniac." You know, like Patrick Purdy, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Kliebold, Adam Lanza, and Kyle Rittenhouse, just to name a few.

Most of these scumbags targeted little kids.

We've never used the term "super predator" for these scumbags I listed. How odd? I wonder why?