Amazon.com Widgets

San Francisco judge throws away warrants for quality of life crimes: Should these crimes be prosecuted?

  • Sure, they should be prosecuted

    Some of these crimes are things that a person should be prosecuted for. Some of the examples I saw were public intoxication and urinating in public. However, I think the judge has the right idea. It's one thing to ticket a person and give them a fine. It's another thing to throw a person in jail because they cannot afford that fine. All this does is leave the fine unpaid and cost the government more money housing the person in jail. There probably needs to be a better way to allow these people to pay their fines, though, and not just let them go unpaid forever.

  • Yes, they should be prosecuted.

    It was wrong for the San Francisco judge to throw away warrants for quality of crimes. The crimes which include littering, urination in public areas among others should be prosecuted. The action of the judge will encourage creeping back of behaviors that are a nuisance to other members of the public.

  • No, probably not.

    While I'm not a hundred percent sure what "quality of life" crimes are, there's probably a good reason the judge threw away warrants for these. In law enforcement there are only so many resources. The officers need to go after serious crimes and protect the people. The courts must try real criminals. Maybe because of limited resources, the judge threw these out.

  • No, these quality of life crimes should not be prosecuted.

    No, these quality of life crimes should not be prosecuted. Broken windows policing only serves to target the most disadvantaged members of society and shifts the attention of law enforcement away from more serious crimes such as murder, rape and assault. Ensuring economic security for all would serve as a better solution.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.