this is getting embarrassing. im glad Biden is shooting down these idiots on the left, over letting DC get lenient on crime. voters are clearly getting tired of this shyt
Walmart to close both stores in Portland, OR
- Thread starter the cac mamba
- Start date
this is getting embarrassing. im glad Biden is shooting down these idiots on the left, over letting DC get lenient on crime. voters are clearly getting tired of this shyt
The Pundits Are Wrong About D.C.’s Crime Bill
A cynical freakout stretching from Fox News to the Washington Post is utterly bogus.
This coverage all repeats the same two claims: that D.C. is poised to slash prison sentences for violent offenses, and that these reforms will lead to more crime.
Neither of these claims is true.
The legislation that D.C. passed in January is not a traditional reform bill, but the result of a 16-year process to overhaul a badly outdated, confusing, and often arbitrary criminal code. The revision’s goal was to modernize the law by defining elements of each crime, eliminating overlap between offenses, establishing proportionate penalties, and removing archaic or unconstitutional provisions. Every single change is justified in meticulous reports that span thousands of pages. Each one was crafted with extensive public input and support from both D.C. and federal prosecutors. Eleventh-hour criticisms of the bill rest on misunderstandings, willful or otherwise, about its purpose and effect. They malign complex, technocratic updates as radical concessions to criminals. In many cases, criticisms rest on sheer legal illiteracy about how criminal sentencing actually works.
The D.C. bill is not a liberal wishlist of soft-on-crime policies. It is an exhaustive and entirely mainstream blueprint for a more coherent and consistent legal system.
Efforts to revise the District’s criminal code began in 2006. Lawmakers recognized that D.C.’s criminal laws were a mess—the product of legislation enacted by Congress in 1901 and tweaked in piecemeal fashion ever since. Countless jurisdictions across the country overhauled their criminal codes beginning in the 1960s, and the city council acknowledged that D.C.’s was overdue for a fresh look. In 2016, the council finally commenced the project in earnest by creating the Criminal Code Reform Commission (CCRC). Councilmembers directed the commission to pore over the books, identify existing problems, and recommend comprehensive solutions.
The CCRC consisted of staff attorneys and an advisory group of experts. The latter included representatives from the U.S. attorney’s office and the D.C. attorney general’s office, separate entities that prosecute all crimes and misdemeanors committed in the District. The commission held dozens of public meetings over four years, then published minutes and audio recordings from each one. In 2021, it published hundreds of pages of recommendations accompanied by thousands of pages of commentary. It also published well over 2,000 pages of appendices containing every draft document, study, chart, table, and data compilation used in its work. This massive array of materials allows an interested reader to learn exactly how the commission carried out its mandate in painstaking detail.
[the article from there goes into detail about how the revision effort fixes all sorts of unclarity and illogic in the current code with many examples. I think this one is particularly clear.]
Consider a crime that’s currently spiking in the District: carjacking. Under the current code, the maximum sentence for armed carjacking is 40 years. That’s the same penalty as second-degree murder, and more than double the penalty for second-degree sexual assault. It is wildly disproportionate to the offense by any standard. No one—not even the most violent and incorrigible offenders—is sentenced to 40 years for carjacking in D.C. The most conservative, tough-on-crime judge would never dream of handing down anywhere close to a 40-year sentence for a single carjacking. Rather, the harshest penalties handed down today run about 15 years. In recognition that some rare cases may warrant even longer sentences, the RCCA authorizes a 24-year maximum sentence for carjacking. That’s nine years longer than the lengthiest sentences today.
Mike Nasty
Superstar
Those comments blame black people even though it's Portland, OR. They really believe white people don't shoplift.
That article confirms what I've heard from other sources. This wasn't some far-left anti-prison act. It was an extremely diligent, data-driven process to make the most sensible criminal code and it's been in process for almost a decade. Whenever you fix a bunch of shyt, people can cherry-pick around the edges to drive their narratives, but they're shooting based on ignorance.
Here's another example:
Vague crimes also lead to inconsistent and arbitrary sentences. Consider the example of robbery. In the current code, there’s a single robbery statute with a maximum penalty of 15 years. It covers everything from nonviolent pickpocketing to beating someone up so badly that they’re hospitalized. Even snatching a pizza from a delivery driver and refusing to pay qualifies as robbery under the current code. And the penalty for the offense doesn’t change if the offender was armed (though other gun offenses may apply). The RCCA, by contrast, divides the crime into armed robbery and unarmed robbery, then breaks each category into first-degree, second-degree, and third-degree offenses.
Third-degree unarmed robbery covers conduct that involves verbal threats or minor injuries like a bruise; the maximum sentence is two years. Second-degree unarmed robbery covers more serious injuries like a broken arm; the maximum sentence is four years. First-degree unarmed robbery covers life-threatening injuries; the maximum sentence is 14 years. These sentences are much higher if the person has a weapon, imposing a maximum penalty of 20 years on top of the sentence for additional weapons offenses.
This nuance is not reflected in the discourse. A critic of the RCCA could claim that the maximum sentence for robbery has dropped. In a misleading sense, that’s true: A pickpocket who would’ve faced a max of 15 years now faces a max of two. But in reality, the RCCA has brought the penalty in proportion to the severity of the crime by creating gradations. It reserves longer sentences for people who commit worse crimes. First-degree armed robbery is punishable by 20 years in prison, a sentence Fox News recently characterized as “a slap on the wrist.” That person is also subject to punishment under a separate chapter that covers weapons offenses. A thief who grabs a woman’s wrist then runs away with her purse deserves to be punished. They do not deserve the same punishment as a thief who beats that woman half to death.
These changes are not driven by any kind of philosophy about decarceration; they are driven by data. Judges have immense discretion in sentencing and rarely if ever impose maximum statutory penalties. To see which sentences judges are actually imposing, the commission looked at average sentences in other jurisdictions, and acquired data from the D.C. Superior Court covering every adult case from 2010 to 2019. It crunched the numbers to identify what sentences D.C. defendants faced in the real world, then based its revisions on these figures. So, for example, the median sentence handed down for robbery in D.C. was 33 months. The harshest sentences reached about nine years. That’s well below the maximum penalty under the current code and the revised code. The revision brings the statutory penalties closer to real-world sentences, but still gives judges ample discretion for extreme sentences.
Here's another example:
Vague crimes also lead to inconsistent and arbitrary sentences. Consider the example of robbery. In the current code, there’s a single robbery statute with a maximum penalty of 15 years. It covers everything from nonviolent pickpocketing to beating someone up so badly that they’re hospitalized. Even snatching a pizza from a delivery driver and refusing to pay qualifies as robbery under the current code. And the penalty for the offense doesn’t change if the offender was armed (though other gun offenses may apply). The RCCA, by contrast, divides the crime into armed robbery and unarmed robbery, then breaks each category into first-degree, second-degree, and third-degree offenses.
Third-degree unarmed robbery covers conduct that involves verbal threats or minor injuries like a bruise; the maximum sentence is two years. Second-degree unarmed robbery covers more serious injuries like a broken arm; the maximum sentence is four years. First-degree unarmed robbery covers life-threatening injuries; the maximum sentence is 14 years. These sentences are much higher if the person has a weapon, imposing a maximum penalty of 20 years on top of the sentence for additional weapons offenses.
This nuance is not reflected in the discourse. A critic of the RCCA could claim that the maximum sentence for robbery has dropped. In a misleading sense, that’s true: A pickpocket who would’ve faced a max of 15 years now faces a max of two. But in reality, the RCCA has brought the penalty in proportion to the severity of the crime by creating gradations. It reserves longer sentences for people who commit worse crimes. First-degree armed robbery is punishable by 20 years in prison, a sentence Fox News recently characterized as “a slap on the wrist.” That person is also subject to punishment under a separate chapter that covers weapons offenses. A thief who grabs a woman’s wrist then runs away with her purse deserves to be punished. They do not deserve the same punishment as a thief who beats that woman half to death.
These changes are not driven by any kind of philosophy about decarceration; they are driven by data. Judges have immense discretion in sentencing and rarely if ever impose maximum statutory penalties. To see which sentences judges are actually imposing, the commission looked at average sentences in other jurisdictions, and acquired data from the D.C. Superior Court covering every adult case from 2010 to 2019. It crunched the numbers to identify what sentences D.C. defendants faced in the real world, then based its revisions on these figures. So, for example, the median sentence handed down for robbery in D.C. was 33 months. The harshest sentences reached about nine years. That’s well below the maximum penalty under the current code and the revised code. The revision brings the statutory penalties closer to real-world sentences, but still gives judges ample discretion for extreme sentences.
Godless Socialist CEO
Superstar
Look who posted that garbage
So far as the Portland Walmart closures go, the narrative blaming it on shoplifting is different from what they put out when they announced it two weeks ago. They've been closing underperforming stores across the country in red and blue states both.
This article from Fox on Feb 23 says nothing whatsoever about shoplifting.
Walmart has confirmed it will be closing two more stores next month, adding to its list of more than half a dozen stores that have already closed or will close in the coming weeks.
Here’s the full list of Walmart closures confirmed this year:
“This decision was not made lightly and was reached only after a thorough review process,” a Walmart spokesperson previously told Nexstar. “We have nearly 5,000 stores across the U.S. and unfortunately some do not meet our financial expectations. While our underlying business is strong, these specific stores haven’t performed as well as we hoped.”
This article from Fox on Feb 23 says nothing whatsoever about shoplifting.
Walmart has confirmed it will be closing two more stores next month, adding to its list of more than half a dozen stores that have already closed or will close in the coming weeks.
Here’s the full list of Walmart closures confirmed this year:
- 3701 SE Dodson Road, Bentonville, Arkansas
- 6900 US Highway 19 North, Pinellas Park, Florida
- 17550 South Halsted Street, Homewood, Illinois
- 12690 South Route 59, Plainfield, Illinois
- 840 N. McCormick Boulevard, Lincolnwood, Illinois
- 301 San Mateo Boulevard SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico
- 1123 N. Hayden Meadows Drive, Portland, Oregon
- 4200 SE 82nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon
- 10330 W. Silver Spring Drive, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
“This decision was not made lightly and was reached only after a thorough review process,” a Walmart spokesperson previously told Nexstar. “We have nearly 5,000 stores across the U.S. and unfortunately some do not meet our financial expectations. While our underlying business is strong, these specific stores haven’t performed as well as we hoped.”
Mike Nasty
Superstar
This sounds like shoplifting without saying shoplifting.
oh wow, you mean walmart didnt just openly say they closed it because of shoplifting
you shills are the worstand ill side with biden and the mayor of DC over your bullshyt, deflecting article
if you can find a CNN article covering this, id be happy to replace it
meanwhile, this is the kind of shyt dems have to address if trump ceases to exist
ORDER_66
Rebirth is upon Us 2025
that's what im saying like Portland, Oregon... like 90% white...
cacs think they commit NO crime in america...
Concerned trolling and gaslightingif you can find a CNN article covering this, id be happy to replace it
meanwhile, this is the kind of shyt dems have to address if trump ceases to exist
Last edited:
Why not just the fact that Portland is one of the most openly anti-Walmart cities in the country? The city openly divested from Walmart a decade ago, and there were only these two big stores within the city limits. Isn't it just as likely that white liberals in Portland don't like Walmart and so Walmart chose to shift their focus to the stores in the suburbs? They frequently close the less-profitable stores in a region and hope some of the business moves to the more profitable stores nearby.
Last edited:
That article was posting the actual details of the bill. The max penalty for car jacking is still higher than what any car jacker has ever been sentenced to. The max penalty for robbery is still higher than what any robber is ever sentenced to. They improved the guidelines, made them more specific and in line with the reality and severity of the crimes.
Do you have any facts you can offer in return?
And Joe Biden - rather famous for his past love of extreme sentencing - chose the position he did solely because idiots like you exist. At this point I've given up on setting any bar for your lack of intelligence, but if you believe his opposition is anything more than political pandering and reading the winds, I don't know what to tell you.
yes; democrats are being perceived as weak on crime, by voters. just ask the NY state party, that cost the dems the House
counting on donald trump being a piece of shyt is not a sufficient strategy in 2024you're a dishonest, biased poster. a democrat could say that the sky is green, and you'd find some way to juelz an agreement