A critical response to Ralph Cipriano's critique of Philadelphia's progressive district attorney, published on Sunday in Glenn Greenwald's Outside Voices.
A serious suggestion please: It's very good and refreshing to have genuine debate and an opportunity to hear differing points of view on important subjects.
It's a major drag to have have those arguments laced with the same bullshit insults ("Bad faith," "dishonest," "hit job") that I can get on CNN or anywhere else. Could you please insist that submitting authors presume good faith as a precondition to debating on your platform? Because otherwise, it's just noise.
Or to put it another way, let's have some fucking civility around here, goddammit!!!
I get it. I'm a bit torn because I think it's important to allow writers to express themselves in their own voices. If they choose a voice that's off-putting or trite, it will make their case weaker. That said, it's our job to choose writers who contribute high-quality stuff. We're getting tons of pitches and drafts each week and it's virtually a full-time job for our freelance editor to pick them and shepherd them to print. I get what you're saying about those phrases but I also think both writers did a good job of making their case substantively. I think the debate we presented here is pretty illustrative of the underlying debate that is driving these issues around the country.
Open debate like democracy is messy, particularly when it comes to strongly held beliefs. I understand the appeal for more civility, but think you would lose more than you would gain by imposing civility rules.
That and as you said, people only hurt their own argument with personal attacks.
What's important is allowing people to read views they don't agree with, even when they find those views repugnant. I appreciate this new format you are offering.
I hear what you're saying. I never said we shouldn't hear viewpoints we disagree with; I said the opposite, actually. My point is that its become a reflexive crutch to immediately delegitimize the opposing advocate (You're a liar, this is just a hit piece, etc.), and we've gotten to a place where the legitimate argument is rarely heard anymore, in favor of ad hominem attacks.
My wish is that if a platform can limit the mudslinging and stick with the issues, the legitimate discussion may have more room to breathe. But I wouldn't expect a dishonest Neanderthal scumbag like you to understand that. [Sorry, couldn't resist :)]
Please note the research about Mr. Spielberg I've presented above and ask yourself if he is an impartial journalist or a full time employee of the DNC.
It looks to me like you gave an obvious DNC shill a platform to respond to the article on, as if the DNC/Media didn't already have a monopoly on that narrative.
Ben Spielberg tries to make the case that the reason Krasner downgraded the charges against White was because White was just trying to defend himself. But it seems like Spielberg doesn't want to use the same "self defence" standard when it doesn't fit the narrative.
6 months ago, when Walter Wallace stormed at the cops with a knife and the cops shooting him (all on video). Krasner launched a criminal investigation of the two cops who shot Wallace while they were being attacked with a knife, all on video.
Despite a long rap sheet, Wallace was allowed by Larry Krasner to walk around free, attack his mother multiple times and then when he got shot for attacking the cops, Mr. Larry launched a criminal investigation of the cops. And as if that wasn't enough, "Krsaner showed up at Wallace's funeral service at the National Temple Baptist Church in North Philadelphia and gave a speech. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the D.A. thanked the Wallace family for their efforts to keep peace in the city.
"Philadelphia owes you a lot," Krasner told the family."
straw man. I have no idea about the case you're talking about here but that has nothing to do with the fact that Cipriano for whatever reason felt the need to lie his ass off about the White case
Two cops who shoot a guy with a knife (14 times) should absolutely be investigated. A guy who gets attacked by a much larger guy and stabs him should be charged with manslaughter and not murder 1. The link you posted does not show the video of the cop shooting but instead leads to an article by Cipriano that betrays him as a right wing culture war hack: there is a picture of a menacing black man with aming an Uzi at at the reader at the top of the article even though the content is about a mentally ill man who was shot dead by 2 cops for wielding a knife.
Whatever the case, the jury made the right call based on video and eyewitness evidence as well as previous documented violent behavior by the man who was killed compared to none by the accused.
I think every commenter in this thread should have to say a few things first:
1. Where do you live and why do you give a fuck about Philadelphia DA race.
2. Have you ever lived in Philadelphia.
Ill start.
I lived in Philadelphia for 11 years. I live in CA now but I have a vested interest in Philadelphia because I have family in several parts of the area still I speak with, and I saw first hand how the law and police and justice were in no way related.
With that said, what evidence are you citing to support any DNC candidate in a city that has been DNC run into the ground since the 1970's? Do you honestly think crime prevention or anything else got better under Krasner? Or are you just pulling that DNC lever like you've been trained to do like a pavlovian dog.
Your the one making this about party politics and not the arguments about police reform of the facts of the cases stated in the articles. The idea that you need to be from this particular city to parse out an argument is ridiculous. These same issues are happening in every city in the nation and it's not that hard to tell when when someone is blowing smoke.
The media does lie all the time to protect Dems but this case does not match that agenda. You can't fight political hackery with more political hackery.
Let em speak their minds. Don’t change anything or require your contributors to alter their content. I assume that you use your judgement and stop actual craziness. But this “debate” wasn’t uncivil by any means.
Ok. But how much responsibility for other adult’s actions can truly be placed on the host? And/Or on the owner of the event venue? Or social platform? We can’t regulate ourselves so we’re looking to excuse our behavior by saying Glenn shouldn’t have allowed certain people room to speak? How is what I say up to Glenn?! I double dare him to come in my house and tell me wtf I will or won’t say. Even if it is in his damn substack. And I’m a paid member! I BOUGHT THE ROOM TO SPEAK. I will say what I damn well please. If you don’t like it, ignore it. So should everyone else. And naturally my post will fall to the code abyss and never be seen again.
If you throw a big wedding, and your families hate one another something fierce, and the whole thing turns into a high intensity episode of American Gipsies. Things get said, things get broken, people get hurt, cops get involved... the whole nine! Is that your fault? Even if you knew they hated each other, is it your fault that not even out of respect for you and your special day could they show enough respect and restraint to get through a few hours of celebration? Is it the venue owner’s fault that instead of those comfy bean bags for guests to sit on they provide metal and wooden chairs KNOWING they could easily be used as weapons?
I am also concerned with how our behavior reflects on Glenn though. We can’t even stay on topic. Let us please NOT become yet another righteous bunch incapable of progressive conversation.
6,000 years ago when people in upper Mesopotamia began to live in urban communities, and liked it because it enhanced their quality of life, they had to decide how to protect person and the fruits of their labor from each other. No killing, later no use of weapons, later no assault. We have agreed that to maintain order enforcement must and can only be done by the entity that has jurisdiction over the whole territory; no one else.
After 6,000 years we have entered a new phase. With physical security now guaranteed we are looking for ways to share in the benefits that come from being organized. For that we put ourselves on equal footing and compare our ideas, not our relative physical strength. And we cannot compare ideas if some participants come to the consultation armed with verbal rockets loaded with moral explosives designed to disintegrate the other so to win the day.
This substack is an intellectual territory under Glenn's jurisdiction. If Glenn wants peaceful participants in a consultation, instead of a rioty 'discussion and debate', he'd be wise to protect them from verbal rockets, or he will have another twitter-like platform where people go to express their visceral sentiments. I don't have a Twitter account, and I don't miss it.
Well, you ain’t wrong! Lol. And I sure hope he doesn’t show up😅. I don’t need any refunds Glenn. Promise!
I was more just thinking the host of a party or event though. You’re talking societal governing. I feel like slightly different rules apply lol. But then again, I guess you’re still right. I mean, if I invite to an event a person whom I KNOW is nothing but trouble, and then they cause trouble. It is their fault, but, had I not invited them?!
But then when it comes to societal governing, it’s usually the “trouble makers” that are protesting and fighting to change things. I mean, how you think marijuana just got medically legalized in religious AF Alabama? Had the trouble makers not been invited and allowed to participate in the discussion, we’d still be arresting and destroying people over joints for many more years to come.
I guess my whole thing is Glenn shouldn’t need to regulate our speech. In fact that defeats our purpose, doesn’t it? Which is to allow everyone to have a say. We should regulate ourselves. Stop getting sidetracked and stay on point. Stop responding to people who are only looking to waste our time online.
The root of the civility issue in the media's relationship with the public is that they've lied too much to *deserve* civility. Civility means more than phony politeness, it's about politeness *on top of* moral behavior. You can't have real civility here because Cipriano lied his ass off.
he made it sound like white just walked up and stabbed a guy, failing to mention that he a. showed the knife first and b. was being tackled by the guy. sorry leaving out crucial context like that is just a huge lie
What is a lie to you can legitimately be truth to another. Why is so difficult to acknowledge that there are as many opinions on any subject as there are human minds?
No, leaving out the context of the White stabbing is just a lie. Perspective is not the issue here at all and refusing to call a spade a spade helps nothing.
I agree. I had not thought about what was bothering me until you pointed it out. Of course, I have to give Mr. Greenwald credit for printing something that described his effort so negatively for no really good reason. That's not something regular media would have the integrity to do.
Amen. I almost stopped reading when I saw the words "dishonest" and "hit job". The author seems irritated that this article would come out just before the election. What!? When else would be a good time? After the election?
Spielberg writes, "He presents no actual evidence tying the gun violence spike in Philadelphia since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to Krasner’s policies because there isn’t any."
But then Spielberg presents his own thesis, equally devoid of actual evidence that the spike has been caused by "generations of systemic racial discrimination and inequities in health care, housing, education, and other factors." I see the potential for claims of correlation, but causality? That's as far of a stretch as the one he claims Cipriano is making.
In my opinion, this piece reads as Spielberg stumping Krasner- picking and choosing the points of Cipriano's article with which he wants to debate, but completely ignoring the most important part of the original article - THE IMPACT ON THE VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME IN PHILADELPHIA. Spielberg should redirect his energy spent empathizing with Krasner towards these victims who have been tossed to the side in this shallow piece of propaganda.
Spielberg’s article could have been titled: “Some Reasons Ralph Cipriano’s Article was Bad”
The article Spielberg SHOULD HAVE written would’ve been titled: “Why Krasner’s Policies are Good for Philadelphia’s Victims of Violent Crimes”
Unfortunately the second claim would actually take work (and ultimately may not have evidence to support it). It’s much easier to take potshots at someone else’s article.
While I am not in total agreement with Cipriano, he undeniably came out on top in this debate.
"DNC response to aid Larry Krasner in Philadelphia DA's race, penned by a random Palo Alto public engagement officer to look like it is grassroots and organic"
Except you're undeniably engaging in Tone Trolling. It is entirely reasonable to treat grotesque propaganda that has destroyed countless lives with contempt.
Being anti ICE pretty much puts one in the "open border" category plus ignores the violence by the illegal immigrants against the legal immigrants and citizens. Plus it's a slap on the faces of legal immigrants like me who went through the proper process, worked hard for it, follow the law and so on. But whatever, I will ignore this for now.
Larry Krasner's anti-war on drugs message seems contradicting with his support for him supporting Biden's UNCONSTITUTIONAL attacks on the Second Amendment for legally law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves - ironically against the very violent illegal gun obtaining criminals whom Larry Krasner lets out for free.
Here's Larry Krasner supporting Biden's Anti-Gun message:
Larry Krasner seems to be okay with illegals, with drug dealers and criminals running around with guns but he wants to disarm the law abiding citizens.
And I should also mention Mr. Biden, author of the mass incarceration bill has as of this month also banned menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars. Menthol cigarettes is preferred by 86% of blacks and 46% of hispanics. How's that not "war on drugs"? Oh probably because laws don't apply to establishment cronies. Biden is banning this while his son is a literal crack addict who also lied on federal gun background checks about his drug usage to obtain a gun illegally and then disposed that illegal gun in the dumpster which secret service went out to clean up after.
Larry Krasner, just like Biden only applies the laws to push their agenda, always contradicting themselves. And the victims are innocent law abiding citizens.
There goes democracy: Arguing that we need to abandon due process, give armed agents of the state unimpeded authority to arrest people without warrants and anyone who argues to the contrary is in favor of open borders. Using that the term "open borders" in this context is pure political hackery designed to cue the culture warriors.
"Being anti ICE pretty much puts one in the "open border" category"
With that gargantuan level of dishonesty, no wonder you're a Cipriano fan. The leftmost border plan was from Julian Castro, who wanted crossings treated as a civil rather than criminal office - which isn't remotely close to "open border". But you knew that.
What's the solution to protecting people from violent crime? You seem to imply that we need to keep putting more people in jail but I see no evidence that this will help the people you claim to care about.
I'll second SimulationCommander in liking this format, however, would like to add that when two sides of a story are presented I tend to favor the story that reality tests well. The disproportionate soaring rate of violent crime in Philadelphia would lend favor to Cipriano's version of events. Also, the astonishing lack of response from Spielberg to the victims of these crimes, if even in the process of defending ones self against them, diminishes his opposition greatly in my opinion.
Pennsylvania is a stand your ground state. Charge an armed man because you're too drunk to control your bellicose nature and the consequences may be regrettable but not criminal.
It’s clear that crime is soaring in multiple cities. Particularly where progressive policies and personnel are. Time for a change of course. Perhaps enforce laws and jail violent criminals?
IMHO any decent working class party would demand that the workers get to live in neighborhoods that are as safe as any upper middle class neighborhood, which means at a minimum, fair and decent policing, a culture of respect for each other and the hard work and sacrifices people make to earn a living, and opposition to gangs and criminals who prey on ordinary, law-abiding people. I do not see violent criminals and drug gang members as working class heroes or civil rights activists. The interests of drug pushers, pimps, and violent offenders are not the interests of the working class.
Upper middle class “leftists” who day trip literally and figuratively through working class neighborhoods have no business lecturing permanent residents on morality or sympathy for violent offenders. It is upper middle class wokism that is infecting the left with its emphasis on emotion driven outrage rather than clear-headed policies based on the facts of the situation.
Anyone who has lived in a big city through the crime spike in the 1970s through the early 1990s knows with absolute certainty who pays the price for liberalism’s policy failures. The liberals, who now call themselves progressives, are setting the stage for a return of higher crime rates, and the inevitable return of right wing politics, and this author has responsibility for paving the way for these results.
This is what's really nuts about these "resistance" types. When I was a kid the punks were actually fighting against the "man". Yes, many were overly idealistic and immature, and needed to grow up a bit but their intentions were solid in that they wanted power to the people and not elites. They were usually working class, or champions for the working class.
Now the "rebels" are the corporate elites fighting AGAINST the little guy, all the while convincing themselves they're fighting the good fight. They think they are on the right side of history, but historians will actually be studying how so many educated people could be such tools for the system and how mass hysteria got them there.
Half my female peers in 2016 were wearing pussy hats screaming about how oppressed they were, all the while employing nanny's, living in $750K plus homes, and planning their European vacations when they aren't trying to flood the border with labor busting under-the-table workers or backing environmental measures that would make energy prohibitively expensive for the working class. They're obsessed with racism but then cheer CNN when they call Tim Scott an Uncle Tom. They send their kids to private schools while voting down charters that would allow their poorer inner city brethren the same opportunities to escape poorly performing public schools.
As long as they pay lip service to identity politics, they are forgiven for the scorn they heap on the lower classes.
Virtue signal your “progressive” credentials by voting for a DA who doesn’t protect the community but who in fact harms it—Or—-someone who will enforce the law. I know what you all will choose. Congrats Mr. Krasner, in advance .
Krasner has explained that he doesn't like modern prosecutor's habit of effectively gutting the jury system via bs charge inflation and plea bargains. I'm definitely not a leftist but I completely agree. Safety isn't everything and there's usually some root-cause-treating way to get to it that's better than (effectively) authoritarian measures.
DA's don't "protect the community" dipshit. They strive for justice according to the state, local, and federal laws. The fucking pigs protect the community in the fantasy world where you live. In some cases it's true. Those places are where the average voter is richer than most of their fellow citizens and live in segregated or gated communities especially in city cores.
I don't want my fucking cops to be the relationship counselor or dog catcher with a gun and body armor - oh not to mention an itchy trigger finger and more training at the firing range (which I've got plenty of) and Warrior Cop training (YouTube it I'm not doing the stupid asinine work for you) instead of de-escalating.
You couldn't hack it in a dense city. Henry Rollins could. And he's probably 7" shorter than us in height. You're a fucking big mouth shitposting pussy. You have NOTHING to offer in real life.
This format is great to see -- especially in an era where "both sides" has become a slur.
Ultimately this debate comes down to philosophical differences. What is a crime? Is it a choice that an individual makes that tears someone else's life apart? Is it something an individual is driven to by social and economic circumstances?
How you answer this question will determine how you view Krasner and his tenure. And, truly, reasonable people can disagree.
Ben Spielberg co-founded and blogs at 34justice.com. He formerly worked in policy research, writing, and advocacy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and has been published by The Washington Post and The New York Times, among other outlets.
If I then go to his Huffpost bio it says and I quote:
Ben Spielberg co-founded and blogs on 34justice about civil rights, economic justice, and a variety of other political issues. He is currently Campaign Manager for Marc Elrich, who is running for Montgomery County Executive in Maryland, and is an alum of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the San Jose Teachers Association, and Teach For America. All views expressed on The Huffington Post and 34justice are his own.
His high school elected Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee for President in a landslide in 2004 and he ran Marc Elrich‘s winning Democratic primary campaign for Montgomery County Executive in 2018, so he knows progressive candidates can win elections if they message effectively.
If I look up his political donations in 2020, I can see 17 donations to the DNC, ACTBLUE and Bernie Sanders and it lists his occupation as Public Engagement Officer for San Jose unified school district, the same San Jose teachers group mentioned on Huffpost.
Here is his LinkedIn.
Can someone explain to me why a San Jose teachers union public engagement officer from Maryland is commenting on the Philadelphia DA's election and being given the podium on your site as a result of this? Because I don't fucking get it.
Surely isn't a DNC shill with lines like this on his profile -
"Worked with Jared Bernstein, former Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden, to advance policies that reduce inequality and promote economic mobility."
Being anti ICE pretty much puts one in the "open border" category plus ignores the violence by the illegal immigrants against the legal immigrants and citizens. Plus it's a slap on the faces of legal immigrants like me who went through the proper process, worked hard for it, follow the law and so on. But whatever, I will ignore this for now.
Larry Krasner's anti-war on drugs message seems contradicting with his support for him supporting Biden's UNCONSTITUTIONAL attacks on the Second Amendment for legally law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves - ironically against the very violent illegal gun obtaining criminals whom Larry Krasner lets out for free.
Here's Larry Krasner supporting Biden's Anti-Gun message:
Larry Krasner seems to be okay with illegals, with drug dealers and criminals running around with guns but he wants to disarm the law abiding citizens.
And I should also mention Mr. Biden, author of the mass incarceration bill has as of this month also banned menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars. Menthol cigarettes is preferred by 86% of blacks and 46% of hispanics. How's that not "war on drugs"? Oh probably because laws don't apply to establishment cronies. Biden is banning this while his son is a literal crack addict who also lied on federal gun background checks about his drug usage to obtain a gun illegally and then disposed that illegal gun in the dumpster which secret service went out to clean up after.
Larry Krasner, just like Biden only applies the laws to push their agenda, always contradicting themselves. And the victims are innocent law abiding citizens.
Ben Spielberg isnt a journalist. I gave 5 examples of him being part of the Media/DNC cartel above.
Stanford - Check.
Maryland politics - Check
Palo Alto school district (Which I was a member of too, wonder if Mr. Spielberg will comment on student suicides in his district, but I bet not) - Check
Worked for people who worked with Biden - Check
None of those scream impartial journalist, they all scream owned shill.
"White intervened and says he told Schellenger “there’s really no reason to act like a tough guy” because Schellenger “looked like he was intent on hurting someone.” White says Schellenger then approached White with balled fists, “gritting his teeth and [saying] he was going to beat the Black off [me],” at which point White pulled out a knife (which he carried for protection) to try to scare Schellenger away"
Quoting White's uncorroborated account to make your case? Anyone with minimal training in jurisprudence would know that these words are perfectly crafted to defend the narrative of self defense agains the manslaughter charge. How could White possibly be in an epistemic position to make the evaluative judgement that Schellenger was "intent" on hurting somebody? Was he brandishing a weapon? Was he doing anything besides yelling at somebody? The inference that White actually was justified in drawing is that the probability is high, that if you intervene in an argument--as an uninvolved bystander-- with a surly, noticeably intoxicated man, that he will, in response to your intervention, verbally accost you. If you respond in turn by pulling out a deadly weapon and then threatening this large intoxicated person with that weapon then you have clearly engaged in behavior that is wanton and reckless by pointlessly increasing the probability of a deadly encounter. That he received two months of probation is an injustice and an example of the type of inverted class warfare that clowns like Krasner play on to keep themselves in power.
I support criminal justice reform, reduced sentencing for drug offenders, and opening doors for convicts who have taken steps to rehabilitate; what I do not support is partisan charlatanism, whereby justice is overlooked so as to advance a tribal agenda.
It's awesome to be able to read completely opposing points of view side by side. However, this article is so full of ad-hominem attacks that it really blows a hole in it's credibility. I'm very interested to see details facts and which put another spin on the behaviour of the prosecutor, however I am much less interested in hearing endlessly about the inferred moral turpitude of Mr. Cipriano and being told what I "should" think.
Glen Greenwald (whom I love), Ben Spielberg and Ralph Cipriano, all missed the boat. We found that punishment, jail time, no bail, no punishment, early release, etc. were all fruitless. Even BF Skinner, the celebrated Psychologist, said punishment in the real world does not work because you can’t do it consistently enough – they commit a hundred crimes until the cops get lucky – and they know that. So they plan so they won’t make the same mistakes next time – but eventually they get unlucky again after another 1,000 crimes. Yes, arrest them, but then put them into every day training of life skills, in or out of prison, and give them hope, a future that is realistic for them. Teach them persistence skills. Teach them how to plan, budget their life for that first job at McBurgers which is just a stepping stone where they earn the rep they need to get the job they realistically want - they could become well paid mechanics and a host of other good, not CEO jobs, but good jobs. Teach them to do a budget. Teach them what to say in a job interview, that they want to make money for their employer, not whine they need a job - which is obvious. Get them going to night or prison school to get the labor skills they need for the job they realistically want. Teach them REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy – by Dr. Albert Ellis, voted most influential living psychiatrist by the APA - it works in a short time, not decades on the couch). Teach them that they can succeed at life despite all the times they have lost and all the people who have called them losers, washed their hands.
But the final hurdle, after acquiring all the skills (I only listed a few) and adjusting their attitudes, is not being able to get a job because there are none due to the FED crushing the labor force or just because they are convicts. Now I don't advocate getting jobs for anyone who has not been trained - it might work, but the odds are 2 to 1 against it. Even without guaranteed jobs, 2/3rds of our graduates succeeded. If they all got a decent job, I believe it would be closer to 90%. But our society, corporations run on fear, fear imposed by the FED when it raises interest rates to destroy jobs and companies. Companies are dictatorships that want employees to fear being fired, being unemployed, not to be able to jump to a better employment situation when their boss is an ass. Clearly, corporations run on fear and greed. But the convicts know that about the real world at a primal level. So if someone commits a crime, I would not give bail unless conditioned on participating, full time, in a training program like ours was. If they have a job, then they must participate and pass our type night school. If they pass, I would have a job waiting for them. But when the victims cry "Justice", just a euphemism for revenge, and the state goes hard core, long sentences to punish them, that never works, costs a lot more in the long run than our type program and stops the perpetual revolving door of the prisons.
You describe the policies we would choose if the goal was public safety, but that has never been the goal of the American prison system.
The express goal or our prison system is revenge, retribution, humiliation, isolation and a way to harm our enemies while companies and government profit off enslaving people.
When you have reptilian brain motives like that involved in running our criminal system, talk of public safety becomes irrelevant and almost impossible.
Amen, Areslent. We totally agree. Don't forget the profit motive: "Beware a man who makes his living fighting an ememy because he has a vested interest in keeping that enemy alive" - Nietzsche. All those corporate private prison companies want more clients, not fewer.
“ Cipriano also bizarrely implies that stimulus checks going to people who deal drugs is the only COVID-19-related reason for the nationwide increase in gun violence between 2019 and 2021, dismissing the much more obvious explanation that, as summarized by Everytown Gun Safety, “the pandemic aggravated the very factors driving city gun violence, [which include] generations of systemic racial discrimination and inequities in health care, housing, education, and other factors.”
Is it just me or are both of these claims suspect?
Those who argue increased gun violence is a result of racial discrimination make as little sense as those who claim it's a result of drugs dealers, progressive DA's or any other simplified one dimensional argument.
All I can say is what you said, which is that it's complicated and I have no obvious answer.
Funny how everyone I see with an easy answer just so happens to have an answer that fits their preexisting view.
I'm sure you are aware for the article that DA Krasner has kept cash bail in place over the objections of many reformers.
You mention history, but I'm unaware of any history showing cash bail is more effective at keeping the public safe, but have seen lots of studies showing the opposite:
Do you have a peer reviewed study showing the opposite? Perhaps I missed it.
I think I know your opinion on these examples, but just to make the point, do you think a dangerous serial murderer or rapists should be allowed out of jail because he has a lot of money and can afford it? Do you think a non-violent low level offender should remain in jail pre-trial, sometimes for years in places like Riker's Island because he does not have the money to buy his way out?
That Heritage url you provided gives a great history of bail going back to Medieval England, which was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
It did not, however, provide any academic research on the effectiveness our outcome of cash bail vs non cash bail connected to the reoccurence of violent crime.
I suspect it did not provide any data is support of bail because the Author knows the data is against him (see the studies I linked above along with how reforming cash bail has worked in NJ and IL).
Do you have any peer reviewed research that provides actual outcomes under the bail system and how it leads to better outcomes?
A Strawman would be a false argument, which I did not make. I simply pointed out two examples to highlight why the idea behind bail reform is flawed. Using the ability to pay as a means to judge risk is inherently flawed unless you believe only poor people commit crime. If you have your own example I would be glad to see and address it.
The Marshall project work I linked to does an excellent job of showing how cash bail is inherently unjust towards poor people. Cash bail is based on the idea that those who are accused of a crime and have money deserve more freedom than those who don't. In practice, America wastes a small fortune incarcerating low level offenders pre-trial because they cannot come up with the small sum they need to get out. To the extent they can raise the money it's often through innocent victims like Mom's, wives and girlfriends who are forced to provide money so their men can get out of jail before trial. It also leads to the innocent who can't afford bail pleading guilty in order to get out of jail, which is often how prosecutors use bail to force guilty pleas.
All the while, there is a corrupt civilian operation of bail bonds that profits off of those least able to afford it.
If someone is dangerous they should not be let out. If someone is not dangerous they should be let go. How much money you have should have nothing to do with it. I have seen no evidence that cash bail keeps us safer.
A serious suggestion please: It's very good and refreshing to have genuine debate and an opportunity to hear differing points of view on important subjects.
It's a major drag to have have those arguments laced with the same bullshit insults ("Bad faith," "dishonest," "hit job") that I can get on CNN or anywhere else. Could you please insist that submitting authors presume good faith as a precondition to debating on your platform? Because otherwise, it's just noise.
Or to put it another way, let's have some fucking civility around here, goddammit!!!
I get it. I'm a bit torn because I think it's important to allow writers to express themselves in their own voices. If they choose a voice that's off-putting or trite, it will make their case weaker. That said, it's our job to choose writers who contribute high-quality stuff. We're getting tons of pitches and drafts each week and it's virtually a full-time job for our freelance editor to pick them and shepherd them to print. I get what you're saying about those phrases but I also think both writers did a good job of making their case substantively. I think the debate we presented here is pretty illustrative of the underlying debate that is driving these issues around the country.
Open debate like democracy is messy, particularly when it comes to strongly held beliefs. I understand the appeal for more civility, but think you would lose more than you would gain by imposing civility rules.
That and as you said, people only hurt their own argument with personal attacks.
What's important is allowing people to read views they don't agree with, even when they find those views repugnant. I appreciate this new format you are offering.
I hear what you're saying. I never said we shouldn't hear viewpoints we disagree with; I said the opposite, actually. My point is that its become a reflexive crutch to immediately delegitimize the opposing advocate (You're a liar, this is just a hit piece, etc.), and we've gotten to a place where the legitimate argument is rarely heard anymore, in favor of ad hominem attacks.
My wish is that if a platform can limit the mudslinging and stick with the issues, the legitimate discussion may have more room to breathe. But I wouldn't expect a dishonest Neanderthal scumbag like you to understand that. [Sorry, couldn't resist :)]
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I entirely agree with your first post (along with this one) and did not intend my post as a response to you, or think you would disagree with my post.
I wish people would be more civil. The cost of enforcing that is too high. I think that is something we agree on.
Sincerely,
Your Resident Neanderathal Scumbag (was my Mom wrong about me?)
We agree on a lot more than we'd argue about, I'm probably getting old and "remembering" something that never existed.
Oh, and the times I've been called scumbag, it meant I was standing on principle. Always made me proud.
😅
Nice!
You’re both right.
Please note the research about Mr. Spielberg I've presented above and ask yourself if he is an impartial journalist or a full time employee of the DNC.
You could be right and if Mr. Spielberg is wrong that might explain why.
If he is right on these issues, however, what difference does his background make?
For me the real game here is not political. Just see things differently on this.
It looks to me like you gave an obvious DNC shill a platform to respond to the article on, as if the DNC/Media didn't already have a monopoly on that narrative.
Solid point.
"both writers did a good job of making their case substantively" No. Don't kid yourself, Cipriano told a big fat disgusting lie.
Wrong.
lol wrong how exactly? it was completely blatant
Ben Spielberg tries to make the case that the reason Krasner downgraded the charges against White was because White was just trying to defend himself. But it seems like Spielberg doesn't want to use the same "self defence" standard when it doesn't fit the narrative.
6 months ago, when Walter Wallace stormed at the cops with a knife and the cops shooting him (all on video). Krasner launched a criminal investigation of the two cops who shot Wallace while they were being attacked with a knife, all on video.
https://www.bigtrial.net/2020/11/if-larry-krasner-had-done-his-job.html
Despite a long rap sheet, Wallace was allowed by Larry Krasner to walk around free, attack his mother multiple times and then when he got shot for attacking the cops, Mr. Larry launched a criminal investigation of the cops. And as if that wasn't enough, "Krsaner showed up at Wallace's funeral service at the National Temple Baptist Church in North Philadelphia and gave a speech. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the D.A. thanked the Wallace family for their efforts to keep peace in the city.
"Philadelphia owes you a lot," Krasner told the family."
straw man. I have no idea about the case you're talking about here but that has nothing to do with the fact that Cipriano for whatever reason felt the need to lie his ass off about the White case
Two cops who shoot a guy with a knife (14 times) should absolutely be investigated. A guy who gets attacked by a much larger guy and stabs him should be charged with manslaughter and not murder 1. The link you posted does not show the video of the cop shooting but instead leads to an article by Cipriano that betrays him as a right wing culture war hack: there is a picture of a menacing black man with aming an Uzi at at the reader at the top of the article even though the content is about a mentally ill man who was shot dead by 2 cops for wielding a knife.
"Krasner launched a criminal investigation of the two cops"
And Krasner criminally investigated White, and criminally prosecuted him. WYP
Whatever the case, the jury made the right call based on video and eyewitness evidence as well as previous documented violent behavior by the man who was killed compared to none by the accused.
I think every commenter in this thread should have to say a few things first:
1. Where do you live and why do you give a fuck about Philadelphia DA race.
2. Have you ever lived in Philadelphia.
Ill start.
I lived in Philadelphia for 11 years. I live in CA now but I have a vested interest in Philadelphia because I have family in several parts of the area still I speak with, and I saw first hand how the law and police and justice were in no way related.
With that said, what evidence are you citing to support any DNC candidate in a city that has been DNC run into the ground since the 1970's? Do you honestly think crime prevention or anything else got better under Krasner? Or are you just pulling that DNC lever like you've been trained to do like a pavlovian dog.
Your the one making this about party politics and not the arguments about police reform of the facts of the cases stated in the articles. The idea that you need to be from this particular city to parse out an argument is ridiculous. These same issues are happening in every city in the nation and it's not that hard to tell when when someone is blowing smoke.
No, they are only happening in major urban centers controlled by the DNC.
This shit is NOT fucking happening in podunk usa.
Did you ask Glenn Greenwald that question? He's about as far away from Philadelphia as you can get.
Glenn is doing this article because it shines another light on yet another example of the media lying to protect DNC friendlies.
I thought that was apparent given he has done 10+ articles showing the media lying repeatedly about shit to help the DNC.
The media does lie all the time to protect Dems but this case does not match that agenda. You can't fight political hackery with more political hackery.
You’re right.
What color is the sky in the world you live in in Alaska?
Let em speak their minds. Don’t change anything or require your contributors to alter their content. I assume that you use your judgement and stop actual craziness. But this “debate” wasn’t uncivil by any means.
Thanks, I appreciate the reply and perspective.
Shame on you, Glenn. Spielberg's article is propaganda, no different than what you find on CNN.
Glenn, if you allow one of your guests, in your home, to verbally assault another guest, how does it reflect on you?
Ok. But how much responsibility for other adult’s actions can truly be placed on the host? And/Or on the owner of the event venue? Or social platform? We can’t regulate ourselves so we’re looking to excuse our behavior by saying Glenn shouldn’t have allowed certain people room to speak? How is what I say up to Glenn?! I double dare him to come in my house and tell me wtf I will or won’t say. Even if it is in his damn substack. And I’m a paid member! I BOUGHT THE ROOM TO SPEAK. I will say what I damn well please. If you don’t like it, ignore it. So should everyone else. And naturally my post will fall to the code abyss and never be seen again.
If you throw a big wedding, and your families hate one another something fierce, and the whole thing turns into a high intensity episode of American Gipsies. Things get said, things get broken, people get hurt, cops get involved... the whole nine! Is that your fault? Even if you knew they hated each other, is it your fault that not even out of respect for you and your special day could they show enough respect and restraint to get through a few hours of celebration? Is it the venue owner’s fault that instead of those comfy bean bags for guests to sit on they provide metal and wooden chairs KNOWING they could easily be used as weapons?
I am also concerned with how our behavior reflects on Glenn though. We can’t even stay on topic. Let us please NOT become yet another righteous bunch incapable of progressive conversation.
Daniela. My point is simple.
6,000 years ago when people in upper Mesopotamia began to live in urban communities, and liked it because it enhanced their quality of life, they had to decide how to protect person and the fruits of their labor from each other. No killing, later no use of weapons, later no assault. We have agreed that to maintain order enforcement must and can only be done by the entity that has jurisdiction over the whole territory; no one else.
After 6,000 years we have entered a new phase. With physical security now guaranteed we are looking for ways to share in the benefits that come from being organized. For that we put ourselves on equal footing and compare our ideas, not our relative physical strength. And we cannot compare ideas if some participants come to the consultation armed with verbal rockets loaded with moral explosives designed to disintegrate the other so to win the day.
This substack is an intellectual territory under Glenn's jurisdiction. If Glenn wants peaceful participants in a consultation, instead of a rioty 'discussion and debate', he'd be wise to protect them from verbal rockets, or he will have another twitter-like platform where people go to express their visceral sentiments. I don't have a Twitter account, and I don't miss it.
Well, you ain’t wrong! Lol. And I sure hope he doesn’t show up😅. I don’t need any refunds Glenn. Promise!
I was more just thinking the host of a party or event though. You’re talking societal governing. I feel like slightly different rules apply lol. But then again, I guess you’re still right. I mean, if I invite to an event a person whom I KNOW is nothing but trouble, and then they cause trouble. It is their fault, but, had I not invited them?!
But then when it comes to societal governing, it’s usually the “trouble makers” that are protesting and fighting to change things. I mean, how you think marijuana just got medically legalized in religious AF Alabama? Had the trouble makers not been invited and allowed to participate in the discussion, we’d still be arresting and destroying people over joints for many more years to come.
I guess my whole thing is Glenn shouldn’t need to regulate our speech. In fact that defeats our purpose, doesn’t it? Which is to allow everyone to have a say. We should regulate ourselves. Stop getting sidetracked and stay on point. Stop responding to people who are only looking to waste our time online.
As a matter fact.... why am I...😅. Just kidding.
Happy hump day!
It's not a "verbal assault" when the writer is vomiting copaganda into a bucket and calling it a column.
The root of the civility issue in the media's relationship with the public is that they've lied too much to *deserve* civility. Civility means more than phony politeness, it's about politeness *on top of* moral behavior. You can't have real civility here because Cipriano lied his ass off.
You're absolutely right. Engaging in frank and honest discussions without name calling or gaslighting is clearly too much to expect from some people.
Did you want to cite some evidence or are you just going to talk out of your ass?
Like when I cited decades of political corruption in Philadelphia, from the DNC, I cited articles like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-philadelphia-judge-elections-convicted-conspiring-violate-civil-rights-and-bribery
Did you want to cite examples of Cipriano lying or just talk out of your ass like we already see everyday from the DNC/Media cartel?
he made it sound like white just walked up and stabbed a guy, failing to mention that he a. showed the knife first and b. was being tackled by the guy. sorry leaving out crucial context like that is just a huge lie
what evidence did you want to provide to support your argument?
None? Oh right then, Ill show the same amount of effort listening to you then.
ok there's a full description in here: https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/rittenhouse-square-stabbing-verdict-michael-white-sean-schellenger-20191017.html
Try reading the article you're commenting on. /eyeroll
What is a lie to you can legitimately be truth to another. Why is so difficult to acknowledge that there are as many opinions on any subject as there are human minds?
No, leaving out the context of the White stabbing is just a lie. Perspective is not the issue here at all and refusing to call a spade a spade helps nothing.
The times of moral uniformity are long gone. Face it, your views are just your own, just like mine.
it's not *always* possible to establish, but (at least) sometimes it is, and getting caught in a completely blatant lie is an unambiguous case
I stopped reading after the word “dishonest” which was in the first paragraph.
Why. Do you also stop reading stories about Bush lying us into Iraq when you see the dreaded "l" word?
Lying by omission is uncivil; pointing out the lie is a necessity.
I agree. I had not thought about what was bothering me until you pointed it out. Of course, I have to give Mr. Greenwald credit for printing something that described his effort so negatively for no really good reason. That's not something regular media would have the integrity to do.
YEAH! OR ELSE (giggle, giggle)
Good point. I noticed a great deal of extraneous fluff in the kasner defenders piece
Amen. I almost stopped reading when I saw the words "dishonest" and "hit job". The author seems irritated that this article would come out just before the election. What!? When else would be a good time? After the election?
It's about the OP's dishonesty, not the timing.
Spielberg writes, "He presents no actual evidence tying the gun violence spike in Philadelphia since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to Krasner’s policies because there isn’t any."
But then Spielberg presents his own thesis, equally devoid of actual evidence that the spike has been caused by "generations of systemic racial discrimination and inequities in health care, housing, education, and other factors." I see the potential for claims of correlation, but causality? That's as far of a stretch as the one he claims Cipriano is making.
In my opinion, this piece reads as Spielberg stumping Krasner- picking and choosing the points of Cipriano's article with which he wants to debate, but completely ignoring the most important part of the original article - THE IMPACT ON THE VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME IN PHILADELPHIA. Spielberg should redirect his energy spent empathizing with Krasner towards these victims who have been tossed to the side in this shallow piece of propaganda.
Final thoughts on this back-and-forth:
Spielberg’s article could have been titled: “Some Reasons Ralph Cipriano’s Article was Bad”
The article Spielberg SHOULD HAVE written would’ve been titled: “Why Krasner’s Policies are Good for Philadelphia’s Victims of Violent Crimes”
Unfortunately the second claim would actually take work (and ultimately may not have evidence to support it). It’s much easier to take potshots at someone else’s article.
While I am not in total agreement with Cipriano, he undeniably came out on top in this debate.
It should have been titled
"DNC response to aid Larry Krasner in Philadelphia DA's race, penned by a random Palo Alto public engagement officer to look like it is grassroots and organic"
No question. We must protect innocent lives.
Except you're undeniably engaging in Tone Trolling. It is entirely reasonable to treat grotesque propaganda that has destroyed countless lives with contempt.
Lets see. Spielberg tweeted his support for when Larry Krasner won the DA in 2017 hailing him as the anti-ICE and anti-war on drugs:
https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/864663760597864449
Being anti ICE pretty much puts one in the "open border" category plus ignores the violence by the illegal immigrants against the legal immigrants and citizens. Plus it's a slap on the faces of legal immigrants like me who went through the proper process, worked hard for it, follow the law and so on. But whatever, I will ignore this for now.
Larry Krasner's anti-war on drugs message seems contradicting with his support for him supporting Biden's UNCONSTITUTIONAL attacks on the Second Amendment for legally law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves - ironically against the very violent illegal gun obtaining criminals whom Larry Krasner lets out for free.
Here's Larry Krasner supporting Biden's Anti-Gun message:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/04/philly-district-attorney-supports-biden-admin-new-action-plan-to-reduce-gun-violence/
Larry Krasner seems to be okay with illegals, with drug dealers and criminals running around with guns but he wants to disarm the law abiding citizens.
And I should also mention Mr. Biden, author of the mass incarceration bill has as of this month also banned menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars. Menthol cigarettes is preferred by 86% of blacks and 46% of hispanics. How's that not "war on drugs"? Oh probably because laws don't apply to establishment cronies. Biden is banning this while his son is a literal crack addict who also lied on federal gun background checks about his drug usage to obtain a gun illegally and then disposed that illegal gun in the dumpster which secret service went out to clean up after.
Larry Krasner, just like Biden only applies the laws to push their agenda, always contradicting themselves. And the victims are innocent law abiding citizens.
There goes democracy: Arguing that we need to abandon due process, give armed agents of the state unimpeded authority to arrest people without warrants and anyone who argues to the contrary is in favor of open borders. Using that the term "open borders" in this context is pure political hackery designed to cue the culture warriors.
"Being anti ICE pretty much puts one in the "open border" category"
With that gargantuan level of dishonesty, no wonder you're a Cipriano fan. The leftmost border plan was from Julian Castro, who wanted crossings treated as a civil rather than criminal office - which isn't remotely close to "open border". But you knew that.
What's the solution to protecting people from violent crime? You seem to imply that we need to keep putting more people in jail but I see no evidence that this will help the people you claim to care about.
I'll second SimulationCommander in liking this format, however, would like to add that when two sides of a story are presented I tend to favor the story that reality tests well. The disproportionate soaring rate of violent crime in Philadelphia would lend favor to Cipriano's version of events. Also, the astonishing lack of response from Spielberg to the victims of these crimes, if even in the process of defending ones self against them, diminishes his opposition greatly in my opinion.
Right. If anything, Spielberg's counter-argument underscores one of Cipriano's main points, that the victims have been forgotten.
As an investigator for the KC prosecutor's office, I tried to make sure victims were not forgotten. It was often quixotic.
I'm with Jen. You stab an unarmed citizen and you belong in jail. Those are the rules.
I live in a state where I have to retreat from an attacker unless he is in my livingroom . The act of stabbing is not a retreat.
Pennsylvania is a stand your ground state. Charge an armed man because you're too drunk to control your bellicose nature and the consequences may be regrettable but not criminal.
It’s clear that crime is soaring in multiple cities. Particularly where progressive policies and personnel are. Time for a change of course. Perhaps enforce laws and jail violent criminals?
Ya that's never been tried before in America. How about looking at what causes the crimes and trying to prevent them?
I am a fan of this format. Article/Rebuttal/Closing statements is the way debate is done!
IMHO any decent working class party would demand that the workers get to live in neighborhoods that are as safe as any upper middle class neighborhood, which means at a minimum, fair and decent policing, a culture of respect for each other and the hard work and sacrifices people make to earn a living, and opposition to gangs and criminals who prey on ordinary, law-abiding people. I do not see violent criminals and drug gang members as working class heroes or civil rights activists. The interests of drug pushers, pimps, and violent offenders are not the interests of the working class.
Upper middle class “leftists” who day trip literally and figuratively through working class neighborhoods have no business lecturing permanent residents on morality or sympathy for violent offenders. It is upper middle class wokism that is infecting the left with its emphasis on emotion driven outrage rather than clear-headed policies based on the facts of the situation.
Anyone who has lived in a big city through the crime spike in the 1970s through the early 1990s knows with absolute certainty who pays the price for liberalism’s policy failures. The liberals, who now call themselves progressives, are setting the stage for a return of higher crime rates, and the inevitable return of right wing politics, and this author has responsibility for paving the way for these results.
This is what's really nuts about these "resistance" types. When I was a kid the punks were actually fighting against the "man". Yes, many were overly idealistic and immature, and needed to grow up a bit but their intentions were solid in that they wanted power to the people and not elites. They were usually working class, or champions for the working class.
Now the "rebels" are the corporate elites fighting AGAINST the little guy, all the while convincing themselves they're fighting the good fight. They think they are on the right side of history, but historians will actually be studying how so many educated people could be such tools for the system and how mass hysteria got them there.
Half my female peers in 2016 were wearing pussy hats screaming about how oppressed they were, all the while employing nanny's, living in $750K plus homes, and planning their European vacations when they aren't trying to flood the border with labor busting under-the-table workers or backing environmental measures that would make energy prohibitively expensive for the working class. They're obsessed with racism but then cheer CNN when they call Tim Scott an Uncle Tom. They send their kids to private schools while voting down charters that would allow their poorer inner city brethren the same opportunities to escape poorly performing public schools.
As long as they pay lip service to identity politics, they are forgiven for the scorn they heap on the lower classes.
Seems you leftists have a choice.
Virtue signal your “progressive” credentials by voting for a DA who doesn’t protect the community but who in fact harms it—Or—-someone who will enforce the law. I know what you all will choose. Congrats Mr. Krasner, in advance .
Krasner has explained that he doesn't like modern prosecutor's habit of effectively gutting the jury system via bs charge inflation and plea bargains. I'm definitely not a leftist but I completely agree. Safety isn't everything and there's usually some root-cause-treating way to get to it that's better than (effectively) authoritarian measures.
Philly voters might surprise you
But then again, Philly brought you Rizzo, and the Move bombings
True. But I hope they do prove me wrong.
So you hope there are more police bombings against Black blocks (not blocs, but still)? Go fuck yourself pig sucker.
I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right
DA's don't "protect the community" dipshit. They strive for justice according to the state, local, and federal laws. The fucking pigs protect the community in the fantasy world where you live. In some cases it's true. Those places are where the average voter is richer than most of their fellow citizens and live in segregated or gated communities especially in city cores.
I don't want my fucking cops to be the relationship counselor or dog catcher with a gun and body armor - oh not to mention an itchy trigger finger and more training at the firing range (which I've got plenty of) and Warrior Cop training (YouTube it I'm not doing the stupid asinine work for you) instead of de-escalating.
Seriously bitch ass go fuck yourself.
He won easily. Good thing Philly voters are smarter than online reactionaries and shit posters who don't actually live there.
“Reactionaries” LoL
Your commie is showing. Don’t live there and couldn’t pay meti do so. Enjoy your shithole.
You couldn't hack it in a dense city. Henry Rollins could. And he's probably 7" shorter than us in height. You're a fucking big mouth shitposting pussy. You have NOTHING to offer in real life.
Joseph McCarthy == Hunder Xiden. C U Next Tuesday, thot.
Only a total fucking pussy replies that someone who disagrees is a "commie" or "Nazi" or "fascist" - fuck yourself bitch.
I love this back and forth. It's like going into a time machine pre social media. I think Cipriano prevailed in this debate.
This format is great to see -- especially in an era where "both sides" has become a slur.
Ultimately this debate comes down to philosophical differences. What is a crime? Is it a choice that an individual makes that tears someone else's life apart? Is it something an individual is driven to by social and economic circumstances?
How you answer this question will determine how you view Krasner and his tenure. And, truly, reasonable people can disagree.
This is very confusing.
You have an article by a Ben Spielberg here. If I click his name on the article it says and I quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Spielberg co-founded and blogs at 34justice.com. He formerly worked in policy research, writing, and advocacy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and has been published by The Washington Post and The New York Times, among other outlets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I then go to his Huffpost bio it says and I quote:
Ben Spielberg co-founded and blogs on 34justice about civil rights, economic justice, and a variety of other political issues. He is currently Campaign Manager for Marc Elrich, who is running for Montgomery County Executive in Maryland, and is an alum of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the San Jose Teachers Association, and Teach For America. All views expressed on The Huffington Post and 34justice are his own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go 34Justice and it says:
His high school elected Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee for President in a landslide in 2004 and he ran Marc Elrich‘s winning Democratic primary campaign for Montgomery County Executive in 2018, so he knows progressive candidates can win elections if they message effectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I look up his political donations in 2020, I can see 17 donations to the DNC, ACTBLUE and Bernie Sanders and it lists his occupation as Public Engagement Officer for San Jose unified school district, the same San Jose teachers group mentioned on Huffpost.
Here is his LinkedIn.
Can someone explain to me why a San Jose teachers union public engagement officer from Maryland is commenting on the Philadelphia DA's election and being given the podium on your site as a result of this? Because I don't fucking get it.
Surely isn't a DNC shill with lines like this on his profile -
"Worked with Jared Bernstein, former Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden, to advance policies that reduce inequality and promote economic mobility."
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-spielberg
Meanwhile, as I linked, the school district he represents has an actual epidemic of teen suicides which he has no comment on.
But he is glad to comment about the Philadelphia DA race because groupthink.
Lets see. Spielberg tweeted his support for when Larry Krasner won the DA in 2017 hailing him as the anti-ICE and anti-war on drugs:
https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/864663760597864449
Being anti ICE pretty much puts one in the "open border" category plus ignores the violence by the illegal immigrants against the legal immigrants and citizens. Plus it's a slap on the faces of legal immigrants like me who went through the proper process, worked hard for it, follow the law and so on. But whatever, I will ignore this for now.
Larry Krasner's anti-war on drugs message seems contradicting with his support for him supporting Biden's UNCONSTITUTIONAL attacks on the Second Amendment for legally law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves - ironically against the very violent illegal gun obtaining criminals whom Larry Krasner lets out for free.
Here's Larry Krasner supporting Biden's Anti-Gun message:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/04/philly-district-attorney-supports-biden-admin-new-action-plan-to-reduce-gun-violence/
Larry Krasner seems to be okay with illegals, with drug dealers and criminals running around with guns but he wants to disarm the law abiding citizens.
And I should also mention Mr. Biden, author of the mass incarceration bill has as of this month also banned menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars. Menthol cigarettes is preferred by 86% of blacks and 46% of hispanics. How's that not "war on drugs"? Oh probably because laws don't apply to establishment cronies. Biden is banning this while his son is a literal crack addict who also lied on federal gun background checks about his drug usage to obtain a gun illegally and then disposed that illegal gun in the dumpster which secret service went out to clean up after.
Larry Krasner, just like Biden only applies the laws to push their agenda, always contradicting themselves. And the victims are innocent law abiding citizens.
Ben Spielberg isnt a journalist. I gave 5 examples of him being part of the Media/DNC cartel above.
Stanford - Check.
Maryland politics - Check
Palo Alto school district (Which I was a member of too, wonder if Mr. Spielberg will comment on student suicides in his district, but I bet not) - Check
Worked for people who worked with Biden - Check
None of those scream impartial journalist, they all scream owned shill.
Citation for the suicide stuff.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/27/film-offers-remarkably-candid-look-at-palo-alto-teen-suicides/
"White intervened and says he told Schellenger “there’s really no reason to act like a tough guy” because Schellenger “looked like he was intent on hurting someone.” White says Schellenger then approached White with balled fists, “gritting his teeth and [saying] he was going to beat the Black off [me],” at which point White pulled out a knife (which he carried for protection) to try to scare Schellenger away"
Quoting White's uncorroborated account to make your case? Anyone with minimal training in jurisprudence would know that these words are perfectly crafted to defend the narrative of self defense agains the manslaughter charge. How could White possibly be in an epistemic position to make the evaluative judgement that Schellenger was "intent" on hurting somebody? Was he brandishing a weapon? Was he doing anything besides yelling at somebody? The inference that White actually was justified in drawing is that the probability is high, that if you intervene in an argument--as an uninvolved bystander-- with a surly, noticeably intoxicated man, that he will, in response to your intervention, verbally accost you. If you respond in turn by pulling out a deadly weapon and then threatening this large intoxicated person with that weapon then you have clearly engaged in behavior that is wanton and reckless by pointlessly increasing the probability of a deadly encounter. That he received two months of probation is an injustice and an example of the type of inverted class warfare that clowns like Krasner play on to keep themselves in power.
I support criminal justice reform, reduced sentencing for drug offenders, and opening doors for convicts who have taken steps to rehabilitate; what I do not support is partisan charlatanism, whereby justice is overlooked so as to advance a tribal agenda.
It's awesome to be able to read completely opposing points of view side by side. However, this article is so full of ad-hominem attacks that it really blows a hole in it's credibility. I'm very interested to see details facts and which put another spin on the behaviour of the prosecutor, however I am much less interested in hearing endlessly about the inferred moral turpitude of Mr. Cipriano and being told what I "should" think.
Glen Greenwald (whom I love), Ben Spielberg and Ralph Cipriano, all missed the boat. We found that punishment, jail time, no bail, no punishment, early release, etc. were all fruitless. Even BF Skinner, the celebrated Psychologist, said punishment in the real world does not work because you can’t do it consistently enough – they commit a hundred crimes until the cops get lucky – and they know that. So they plan so they won’t make the same mistakes next time – but eventually they get unlucky again after another 1,000 crimes. Yes, arrest them, but then put them into every day training of life skills, in or out of prison, and give them hope, a future that is realistic for them. Teach them persistence skills. Teach them how to plan, budget their life for that first job at McBurgers which is just a stepping stone where they earn the rep they need to get the job they realistically want - they could become well paid mechanics and a host of other good, not CEO jobs, but good jobs. Teach them to do a budget. Teach them what to say in a job interview, that they want to make money for their employer, not whine they need a job - which is obvious. Get them going to night or prison school to get the labor skills they need for the job they realistically want. Teach them REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy – by Dr. Albert Ellis, voted most influential living psychiatrist by the APA - it works in a short time, not decades on the couch). Teach them that they can succeed at life despite all the times they have lost and all the people who have called them losers, washed their hands.
But the final hurdle, after acquiring all the skills (I only listed a few) and adjusting their attitudes, is not being able to get a job because there are none due to the FED crushing the labor force or just because they are convicts. Now I don't advocate getting jobs for anyone who has not been trained - it might work, but the odds are 2 to 1 against it. Even without guaranteed jobs, 2/3rds of our graduates succeeded. If they all got a decent job, I believe it would be closer to 90%. But our society, corporations run on fear, fear imposed by the FED when it raises interest rates to destroy jobs and companies. Companies are dictatorships that want employees to fear being fired, being unemployed, not to be able to jump to a better employment situation when their boss is an ass. Clearly, corporations run on fear and greed. But the convicts know that about the real world at a primal level. So if someone commits a crime, I would not give bail unless conditioned on participating, full time, in a training program like ours was. If they have a job, then they must participate and pass our type night school. If they pass, I would have a job waiting for them. But when the victims cry "Justice", just a euphemism for revenge, and the state goes hard core, long sentences to punish them, that never works, costs a lot more in the long run than our type program and stops the perpetual revolving door of the prisons.
You describe the policies we would choose if the goal was public safety, but that has never been the goal of the American prison system.
The express goal or our prison system is revenge, retribution, humiliation, isolation and a way to harm our enemies while companies and government profit off enslaving people.
When you have reptilian brain motives like that involved in running our criminal system, talk of public safety becomes irrelevant and almost impossible.
Amen, Areslent. We totally agree. Don't forget the profit motive: "Beware a man who makes his living fighting an ememy because he has a vested interest in keeping that enemy alive" - Nietzsche. All those corporate private prison companies want more clients, not fewer.
It is refreshing to see valid solutions put forth. Rehabilitation and not punishment would be the solution regardless of circumstance.
“ Cipriano also bizarrely implies that stimulus checks going to people who deal drugs is the only COVID-19-related reason for the nationwide increase in gun violence between 2019 and 2021, dismissing the much more obvious explanation that, as summarized by Everytown Gun Safety, “the pandemic aggravated the very factors driving city gun violence, [which include] generations of systemic racial discrimination and inequities in health care, housing, education, and other factors.”
Is it just me or are both of these claims suspect?
Agreed. It feels like the truth will be much more complicated.
That's the crazy thing.
Those who argue increased gun violence is a result of racial discrimination make as little sense as those who claim it's a result of drugs dealers, progressive DA's or any other simplified one dimensional argument.
All I can say is what you said, which is that it's complicated and I have no obvious answer.
Funny how everyone I see with an easy answer just so happens to have an answer that fits their preexisting view.
Retconning is a powerful drug.
This back and forth is highly entertaining.
Dude lost me at uniformly getting rid of cash bail. It’s a shame when you don’t understand history. Sure be fair but don’t be stupid.
I'm sure you are aware for the article that DA Krasner has kept cash bail in place over the objections of many reformers.
You mention history, but I'm unaware of any history showing cash bail is more effective at keeping the public safe, but have seen lots of studies showing the opposite:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-cash-bail-works
https://interrogatingjustice.org/cash-bail/cash-bail-reform-2021/
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/30/the-state-of-bail-reform
Do you have a peer reviewed study showing the opposite? Perhaps I missed it.
I think I know your opinion on these examples, but just to make the point, do you think a dangerous serial murderer or rapists should be allowed out of jail because he has a lot of money and can afford it? Do you think a non-violent low level offender should remain in jail pre-trial, sometimes for years in places like Riker's Island because he does not have the money to buy his way out?
Here you go. https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/the-history-cash-bail
Spare me the straw men. And false choices.
Cash bail can and should be fair and contextual. It exists for a purpose that is not inherently racist or unjust.
That Heritage url you provided gives a great history of bail going back to Medieval England, which was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
It did not, however, provide any academic research on the effectiveness our outcome of cash bail vs non cash bail connected to the reoccurence of violent crime.
I suspect it did not provide any data is support of bail because the Author knows the data is against him (see the studies I linked above along with how reforming cash bail has worked in NJ and IL).
Do you have any peer reviewed research that provides actual outcomes under the bail system and how it leads to better outcomes?
A Strawman would be a false argument, which I did not make. I simply pointed out two examples to highlight why the idea behind bail reform is flawed. Using the ability to pay as a means to judge risk is inherently flawed unless you believe only poor people commit crime. If you have your own example I would be glad to see and address it.
The Marshall project work I linked to does an excellent job of showing how cash bail is inherently unjust towards poor people. Cash bail is based on the idea that those who are accused of a crime and have money deserve more freedom than those who don't. In practice, America wastes a small fortune incarcerating low level offenders pre-trial because they cannot come up with the small sum they need to get out. To the extent they can raise the money it's often through innocent victims like Mom's, wives and girlfriends who are forced to provide money so their men can get out of jail before trial. It also leads to the innocent who can't afford bail pleading guilty in order to get out of jail, which is often how prosecutors use bail to force guilty pleas.
All the while, there is a corrupt civilian operation of bail bonds that profits off of those least able to afford it.
If someone is dangerous they should not be let out. If someone is not dangerous they should be let go. How much money you have should have nothing to do with it. I have seen no evidence that cash bail keeps us safer.