We aren’t very serious about enforcing our laws, especially when kids are involved. We had police catch 12 and 13 year olds (Kia Boyz) this weekend in a car with guns, and they are out already. They will get some restorative justice, but no real correction in behavior and I’m sure they will do it again.
Our real problem is just the pendulum swinging too far towards assuming people want to be good and they just need some compassion.
> We aren’t very serious about enforcing our laws, especially when kids are involved.
In the US we lock more of our citizens behind bars than any other nation on Earth.
Conviction for even a minor offense can make it extremely difficult to get employment or housing. People rarely get a clean slate after serving their time and even an arrest record without a conviction can haunt you. Nearly all other developed countries have abolished capitol punishment. We haven't gone a single year since 1981 without an execution.
The pendulum has already swung too far towards punishment and law enforcement, to the point that abuses by police and our mass incarceration problem are a total embarrassment for a country that tries to call itself "the land of the free" with a straight face.
There's little doubt that many of the people arrested in the US would do better with some compassion than they would with harsher punishment. This is especially true for literal children. One example where compassion is the better option would be treating addiction instead of punishing drug addicts. That would save billions in tax dollars, reduce crime, and help the addict to recover their lives and remove several barriers that could prevent them from getting work and being productive members of society. If we'd done that decades ago instead of feeding US citizens to the prison industrial complex we'd be so much better off as a nation today.
There's a risk for over-correcting, but there's also a massive amount of space between "do nothing" and our usual method today which amounts to "torture then never forgive" or "torture then kill" so there's plenty of opportunity to find some improvements.
I fully agree with you regarding situations where people get put into the system. Our justice system in practice, if not philosophy is very much based on punishment rather than rehabilitation. In my personal opinion this is medieval and really needs to change.
However, what GP I suspect is seeing and what many others have seen as well, is a recognition that the system is broken, and thus a reluctance on a part of authorities to move forward with prosecutions for certain people. The goal of not institutionalizing them and setting them up for a difficult future is noble and laudable, however, I worry that this will ultimately be counterproductive. It is going to cause a swing much like what we are seeing, where people conclude that we are not tough enough on crime and thus we need to get more extreme, more punishing, and more authoritarian, which is the exact wrong way in my opinion.
I would much rather we focus on fixing a monstrously broken and outdated system, rather than trying to work around it. That also makes for much more equality and Justice, because then you don't have to hope that you are one of the lucky ones for whom The system looks the other way.
It doesn't have to be a massive revolution either. We can iterate towards it in a progressive manner, starting by removing absurdities like mandatory minimums, victimless crimes or crimes for whom the victim is some nebulous "society", and other things like that.
> The goal of not institutionalizing them and setting them up for a difficult future is noble and laudable, however, I worry that this will ultimately be counterproductive. It is going to cause a swing much like what we are seeing, where people conclude that we are not tough enough on crime and thus we need to get more extreme, more punishing, and more authoritarian, which is the exact wrong way in my opinion.
I totally agree. I also worry that people will continue to push for more extreme forms of punishment. It's gross that we accept how prisoners and ex-cons are treated as it is. I think there are still a lot of people who would already prefer if our legal system was even more cruel, but even if most of us want reform all we can really do is vote for the people willing to do it. Our strongest point of leverage here is jury nullification, but I wonder how popular that would actually be with jurors and since most cases never reach trial we're denied the opportunity to use nullification to prevent defendants from being subjected to excessive, inhumane, and unjust punishments anyway.
To reiterate what you just wrote in the second paragraph: Punishment ruins lives, so people vote against ruining each other's lives, so a group of people (who are but you did not refer to as fascists) who are disappointed with the amount of lives not being ruined will increase the level of punishment even further to maintain or exceed life-ruining equilibrium?
It may be true or false, that I don't know, but the blame for it should lie squarely on the people who seek to increase life-ruining instead of the people who seek to decrease it.
> the blame for it should lie squarely on the people who seek to increase life-ruining instead of the people who seek to decrease it.
I don't disagree, but assigning blame won't get us anywhere. In fact I think it actively works against us because:
1. It just further causes divisions. If people feel like they're being blamed, they will get defensive which usually also includes a double down and a shift to amygdala-based reasoning rather than PFC-based reasoning.
2. It shifts the conversation to a debate about "whose fault" or "who is to blame" rather than "is the system ethical, efficiacious, and what can we do about it?" That debate will then take all the energy, and even if it got resolved it's all wasted because simply assigning blame doesn't do anything toward solving the problem.
Then don't punish. Reform, correct, fix. A lot of people will still see that as punishment (like they would see army bootcamp as punishment), but then we would just start disagreeing.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It can be difficult to sync on terminology and philosophy though because in theory for most people the justice system is supposed to be about rehabilitation. The idea that you should serve your time and return to society is almost universally agreed saving the most extreme cases. Yet our system doesn't achieve that because a lot of the structures are based on "punishment" and "deterrence." Simply raising awareness and following the trail of logic is usually enough to find a lot of common ground. But it being a systemic problem, there isn't really anything an individual can do (that isn't IMHO counterproductive, see earlier thread about the unintended consequences of well-meaning DAs and LEOs letting people go to avoid the pitfalls of the system). It's a tremendously challening problem.
It's also one many other countries don't have, so we have plenty of examples to benefit from. I'd say a few "easy" patches would be things like: treating people with mental health issues, treating addicts, housing homeless people, clearing most people's records when they've severed their time/making it illegal for most employers to ask about past arrests/convictions, providing better assistance to people post-release and lessening or delaying some of the additional burdens we put on them (fines, fees, inflexible meetings/appointments), etc.
The biggest challenge will be convincing the fearful and the revenge/punishment fetishists that more and harsher punishment isn't the solution and that they aren't being endangered by making the needed changes.
Well that's depressing. Thailand is not a country we should strive to emulate. They have their own mass incarceration problem (they rank 8th in the world), state executions, their own "war on drugs", lots of violent killings involving guns, high levels of corruption, forced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, and a horrible track record for human rights. Thailand is a mess and it's tragic that so much of the US can't do any better when it comes to locking citizens behind bars.
It isn't, but many places in the US are not as bad as it seems if we count the USA as a whole. Mississippi (and Louisiana and most of the south up to and including Texas and Florida) is just really bad.
this is an absolutely insane position to take in 2024. all around we have junkies in the streets, squatters, shoplifters, car thieves, burglars operating with impunity. you are replying to a post about 12-13 year-olds stealing cars and carrying guns, ffs. this should involve at least several years in jail. maybe a 2nd chance at 18.
the pendulum has definitely swung too far, but the direction it's swinging is not what you think. the last decade has been an wonderful experiment in reversing some of the "tough-on-crime" laws. the results of which have basically completely disproven the idea that sentencing, bail, etc. reforms would ever have a net benefit.
mass-incarceration is not a "problem" to be solved - it's a symptom, a result. the problem is an increasingly lawless society. measuring how many people are incarcerated is meaningless without comparing it with how much crime is happening.
compassion, i agree with. but what's needed is to put effort into better sorting in the justice system. some people, for example juveniles, deserve and will be well served by compassion. others will simply take massive advantage of it. the later need to be locked up, not for rehabilitation, but to prevent crime. a great way to differentiate it is repeat offenders. there's basically no excuse for this. 2nd chances? maybe. 3rd, 4th, etc... no way.
None of these things are new. Junkies aren’t new, organized criminal groups aren’t new, car thefts aren’t new.
There has been a pandemic uptick, but the broader trend is way, way less common than in your parents lifetime.
The thing about policies that are redistributive and the media is that generally the people writing the stories will be closest to those who have been hurt, not helped. I am sure there are plenty of people (criminals, yes) who have been helped by bail reform.
> all around we have junkies in the streets, squatters, shoplifters, car thieves, burglars operating with impunity.
This is the insane take. Maybe that's your personal bubble talking, but there are millions of people who go about their daily lives without seeing a single junkie in the street. America has always had "bad" neighborhoods filled with junkies/squatters/shoplifters/car thieves/burglars but they have not and do not operate with impunity. You can easily find examples of all of those things resulting in someone being arrested/convicted/shot by police.
Record numbers of Americans can't afford rent. Household debit is at all time highs as well. There are also historic numbers of Deaths of Despair. Is it any wonder that drug use, homelessness, squatting, and crimes like shoplifting/theft are rising? It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does explain much of it. Give Americans zero help for mental illness, don't act surprised when you get a bunch of crazy people around you. Punish addicts instead of helping them? Enjoy your junkies I guess! Allow massive numbers of people to live in desperation and you can't act shocked when they act out of desperation.
"Tough-on-crime" laws will not fix those issues because they do nothing but making the underlying causes even worse. "Tough-on-crime" laws are exactly what have been failing us, and why people have started looking for alternatives.
> you are replying to a post about 12-13 year-olds stealing cars and carrying guns, ffs. this should involve at least several years in jail. maybe a 2nd chance at 18.
A 12 year does not benefit from a prison sentence. Do you honestly think that's going to keep them from committing crimes later on in life? We should expect children to do stupid things. Their undeveloped brains are wired for risk taking, and failing to see/consider the consequences of their actions. (https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...). That doesn't mean they are incapable of making good choices, but it does make it much more likely (and natural) for them to fail to make good choices from time to time. Not all acts of teenage impulsivity will lead to stealing cars, but those 12-13 year olds mentioned would be far from the first kids to do it. Perhaps you could argue that it's the parents who should be punished for not raising their child properly or for failing to keep them away from guns, but I'm skeptical that it would prevent other families from having the same problems. Children need to be allowed to grow and learn from their mistakes. There need to be consequences for when they screw up, but is sending a child off to get tortured and raped for years the best solution you can come up with?
> mass-incarceration is not a "problem" to be solved
Hard disagree. There is plenty of research into the problems it causes and enables to continue. It's hugely wasteful and expensive. Not only do tough on crime laws and mass incarceration fail to prevent crime (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...), it actually makes things worse! It rips families apart. It hurts communities. It hurts the economy, It hurts the people who are abused in prisons. It prevents people from being contributing members of society. No good comes from mass incarceration.
Do you honestly think America has so much more crime than the rest of the planet? It's not as if our incarceration problem only got that bad recently either. It's been insane for a very very very long time.
"how much crime is happening" isn't really the issue anyway. It's "what crimes are committed, should they be crimes in the first place, and do we need people behind bars because of them".
A massive percentage of the people who are locked up have never even been convicted of a crime (https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/pie2023.webp) and many who have been are there for non-violent and drug related offenses, often with no victim at all!
> others will simply take massive advantage of it. the later need to be locked up, not for rehabilitation, but to prevent crime.
Everyone should be free to take advantage of compassion, but compassion doesn't mean that people can just get away with whatever they want either. I agree, that prison is no way to rehabilitate someone. That said, a night or two in jail can be a nice "time out"/wake up call. There will always be some people who need to be kept locked up to protect the rest of society. It should be a last resort though and those people shouldn't be subjected to torture or substandard conditions. They should be allowed to live a safe, healthy, good life - just one kept apart from the rest of the us and without their freedom.
> a great way to differentiate it is repeat offenders. there's basically no excuse for this.
You can't imagine why someone who gets out of jail, is suddenly saddled with massive debt, fees, and fines from the experience, but whose record means they cannot get a job or an apartment might turn to crime again? Why someone who has spent years being beaten, raped, tortured behind bars might come out of prison with problems that lead them to drugs and the problems that causes? Why people who are locked up for mental illness and released without treatment or the means to get treatment might reoffend?
Again, it doesn't justify the crimes, but it does help to explain them. If we don't give people who get out of prison a chance to get their life back together what else do we expect? Our current system makes it extremely unlikely for someone to have a normal decent life once they are out of prison. Especially if that person had very little money/support, or had mental illness or an addiction, or very little education (maybe they were only 12-13) when they went in. The vast majority of the people who enter the justice system have a mental illness/impairment, an addiction, or both. That has to be dealt with or it's just going to cause more issues. Many leave prison with mental problems due to the trauma of their experiences. That has to be dealt with.
This isn't an unsolvable problem. Other countries do so much better than we do, so we can draw from their examples. Suggesting that we should ignore all those examples and be even more draconian and oppressive is a very weird take.
- if you can drive to work, school, shopping, etc. and not see some junkie panhandling, or a squatter in an RV dumping sewage on the street or needles or trash or human shit, then great for you. you live in a entitled bubble. if you can park your car on a public street without a good chance that it's windows be broken or it's cat be thieved, then good for you. the reality speaks otherwise to most of the rest of us.
> Record numbers of Americans can't afford rent.
true
> Is it any wonder that drug use, homelessness, squatting, and crimes like shoplifting/theft are rising?
nope
> Punish addicts instead of helping them?
you can't help them unless you can force treatment. you can't force them into treatment if they are "free". i'm not saying that this is how it is now except in a few places, but the obvious solution is to enforce, strongly the laws and then allow them to choose treatment as a diversion, with the proviso that failing means back to square one. in my book doing anything more lenient is not "helping", it's actually a death sentence.
> A 12 year does not benefit from a prison sentence. Do you honestly think that's going to keep them from committing crimes later on in life?
no and no. a stint in juvee is what the damn kid needs. sadly if you're stealing cars and carrying guns at 12-13, you're a piece of shit and probably beyond help.
> Hard disagree. There is plenty of research...
bullshit. you didn't respond to what i actually wrote: "it's a symptom, a result". this whole thread is about a string of car thefts so obvious that it makes global news. you can't plausibly argue that there's not enough incarceration or that crime is at a multi-generational low.
at the end of the day here the deal: if i (wisely) forfeit the responsibility of my own protection to the state, i really expect that it simply holds it's end of the bargain. which means: if i catch someone stealing from me that the state somehow does something to make sure that doesn't happen again. i really don't care if it's cheaper or not to re-rehabilitate vs. incarcerate. i certainly don't give 2 shits about his broken family, etc. if the best thing for society as a whole is for diversion and therapy, etc., i don't oppose it. but he better the f*ck not do it again to me or someone else. if that fails, then screw it, it's not better than anarchy.
I don't think there's anything more guaranteed to turn a 12 or 13 year old into a lifelong criminal than what I think you're implying by "real correction in behaviour"; aka a multi-year prison sentence.
If someone is stealing cars at 12 or 13 years old, they're already well on their way down the path towards irredeemability. Society has to do something or they will turn into a lifelong criminal. A multi-year prison sentence is probably not going to help them, but counseling, a better home and school environment, food in the belly, and so on might. You have to do something besides "catch and release" which has been the default in the USA for some time.
USA crime is still very low compared to pretty much the entire 20th century, it seems early to proclaim certain approaches as a failure.
FWIW, catalytic converter theft was recently a big problem in the US and the classic approach of getting the FBI involved, identifying the high-level fencers and arresting, was incredibly effective and cat thefts have plummeted.
I suspect disrupting the organized crime in Canada would work similarly well at reducing car theft.
Agreed, it really is a paperwork issue. Just have transport and shipping companies require proof of ownership prior to accepting the car, and these thefts will evaporate overnight. Without a channel to market, it eliminates the incentive for thieves to steal your car in the first place.
It's not a tech problem, rather a legislative one. Too bad it won't fly because the current govt. has made it a habit of treating every issue as a wedge issue.
I think part of the problem is also that as criminal trade becomes lucrative & there are more crackdowns in other potential venues, more and more capital is being spent to basically build up these ports in Canada as criminal strongholds.
There is likely significant political shielding for the operation of these criminal groups in many Canadian ports.
It really depends where you live in France. You have a big fence left in the west, a 'casse' near bordeaux, but you won't really find anything from violent crime (copper, stolen cars, phones and bikes at most, and most of the activity is genuine).
It's also a good way to know if organized crime is present in your area. If water distribution and/or trash collection is privatized to a 'local' company, you probably have some :)
The rest of the west, even Nantes and Rennes are really chill.
The issue in France is the resurgence of organized crime since 2004-2006. The tough on small crime policy jailed small magrebi caïds (basically local slumlords and drug dealers). Some local caïds gangs were strong enough to endure the storm and to emerge as stronger gangs, but organized crime from southern France (Grenoble, Marseille), and new gangs used that time to carve parts of Lyon and Paris. New crime families emerged around 2012, and around 2015 (I was living in Paris at that time) it could have turned really bad. Rumors of missile launchers, ak47 and other nice stuff in every shop. Things calmed down for no reason (I think the travellers families and magrebi gangs decided to share territory after the terror attacks and Sentinel), nothing really exploded, I left Paris.
To me, the only true violence left in 2023-2024 is around Marseille, near Monaco (Russian mafia left a big hole recently), in camargue (because of the new travellers families). Maybe it'll start again in Paris and Lyon, hopefully not.
I am someone you would label a ‘crime denier’ because I feel the problem is definitely smaller than in the past and it is generally overstated in the media. That is precisely why I think we should focus on organized crime and the driving clearing houses rather than individual street-level criminals.
I used to be like that, then I started seeing things happening myself. The first time you see Kia Boyz smashing windows and grabbing purses in a grocery store parking lot at noon on a Sunday is an eye opener (Do they want to get caught? this is pretty blatant, maybe they know we don't have many police these days). I always thought our crime problem was limited to porch piracy and street parked cars getting their windows bashed in at night (you know, typical drug addict crime), but nope, we have another problem.
I hear what you're saying, I live in SF. My opinions are evolving on the subject. There is a lot of not profit-driven vandalism and violence that I witness here and disrupting fencers will obviously do nothing for that.
But for car theft & other profit-driven commodity thefts, I do think targeting the markets can often be very effective.
I don't know. Many of these kids...they are from war torn communities (legal immigrants, refugees). They might be working through huge trauma, and they don't seem very organized at all (steal a car to...steal another car and/or knock over a gas station...then abandon the car on the street somewhere). There really isn't a market to target, the cars are almost always found after a few days, just trashed and damaged. They are just used for other crimes mostly.
The drug addicts are much more organized in comparison (steal legos at Target, fence at some place for fentanyl).
Yep. I don't know anything about car theft outside of where I live (Seattle), so its not even generalizable to the rest of the states, and I'm commenting specifically on Kia Boyz car thefts...I'm sure Seattle has actual car thieves who are stealing cars to sell them off and not just cause general very visible chaos. Although statistics show most stolen cars are recovered here in Seattle:
> The vast majority of auto thefts are committed by criminals looking for temporary transportation. Thus, most vehicles are recovered within a few weeks to a month and with relatively little damage. Very few vehicles are stolen for parts.
> It should be noted, however, that British Columbia also had the highest rate of recoveries of stolen cars (91 per cent) compared to the national average (73 per cent) (Fleming, Brantingham, & Brantingham, 1994).
The premise that catalytic converter thefts have plummeted in the last few years is incorrect. In fact, recent data indicates that vehicle-related thefts, including catalytic converter thefts, have surged. According to a report by the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), the nation experienced more than 64,000 catalytic converter thefts in 2022, with California and Texas leading the country in these incidents[3]. This represents a significant increase from 16,660 claims in 2020 to 64,701 in 2022, indicating a rising trend in catalytic converter thefts[3].
Furthermore, overall vehicle thefts have also increased. The FBI's annual crime report showed that there were 721,852 car thefts across the country in 2022, up from 601,453 incidents in 2021 and 420,952 reported in 2020[2]. This surge in car thefts has been attributed to various factors, including economic downturns, supply chain issues, and the high demand for cars and parts[4]. Additionally, a viral TikTok challenge encouraging the theft of Kia and Hyundai vehicles for joyrides, known as performance crime, has contributed to the uptick in car thefts[2].
Therefore, the data clearly indicates that catalytic converter thefts, as well as overall vehicle thefts, have not plummeted but have significantly increased in the last few years.
My comment was confusing so let me address what you are saying:
1. This is a very recent thing I am discussing, the fencers were only arrested in the beginning of 2023 and the thefts have fallen in 2023, specifically second half. This should be available in more fine-grained crime stats or simply by looking at like google trends of catalytic converter replacement searches.
2. Crime is much lower than in the 20th century, but I agree there has been a post-pandemic upshift.
this trend is after they busted a billion dollar auto parts company for being heavily involved in fencing these parts, seized 500 million dollars, and other anti-fencing provisions were made
Ah yes, that's the one. Misremembered the apprehension date slightly. There have been subsequent arrests in the Bay Area of people who were part of the supply chain for this group.
Do you know about the endemic of illiteracy in the US right now? More likely than not that child can't even read above a 2nd grade level.
We could have real rehabilitation centers focused on educating the kids, treating them like human beings with respect, and show them how to live life well.
Or we could put them in kid-jail and be put at a higher risk for all sorts of violence and abuse just to punish them.
As long as people hold the opinion that a 12 year old is "well on their way down the path towards irredeemability", we won't ever move past revenge based for-profit prisons and the crime problem will continue to get worse as these illiterate and stunted children are released back out into society.
What teachers are saying is that socio-economics prevent any type of education from happening in many cases, i.e. there are many, many children who are going to struggle mightily unless the totality of their life systemically improves. Could teachers improve? Probably. Are teachers the underlying problem? I used to think so, but in dealing with our own school board/system it's very clear this is not the case.
That's easy. We just need to halve class sizes, fire half of the administration, double the pay for teachers in the worst districts, and raise the floor of the child social safety net to the point that even having complete fuckups for parents won't ruin your life.
> counseling, a better home and school environment, food in the belly, and so on might.
This seems right for preventing criminals from forming out of otherwise-blank-slate children, but what do you do with these kids? There's no magic wand that turns their home & school life right.
On the other hand, there are plenty of kids who had a perfectly fine and financed upbringing who turned into criminals and terrors, they just tend toward white-collar crime.
This brings us full circle to the original comment that religion used to serve a useful purpose for society that's been largely lost -- a set of ethics & morals, and if those don't take real well there's always the all-seeing entity watching you at all times. In modern times the all-seeing eye of God has been replaced by surveillance cameras, but what is the base of morals replaced by?
The first thing is that there are no universal sets of morals. Ethics is a totally different beast but it’s something I’m not sure a young kid can wrap their heads around. But following “the rules” is something you can teach a kid and works until they are old enough to know when to break the rules.
One thing we stressed to our son is: if you break the rules/laws, you will eventually get caught. So make sure whatever you are doing is worth the consequences.
There’s no need for some magical god to punish people, just the fact that, eventually, someone will figure out what you did (or more likely, they’ll tell on themselves). It’s worked so far…
> The first thing is that there are no universal sets of morals.
That's a belief presented as fact. I'm not super excited about getting into a philosophical debate, but just something to consider:
"The rules: help your family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property, were found in a survey of 60 cultures from all around the world." -- https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found...
It’s a fact because I think we can agree there is at least one person on this planet who has counter-morals to any morals you present, for example. As long as one person on this planet has a difference of opinion on what morals they abide by, there can be no universal morals. That IS a fact, not an opinion.
> I don't think there's anything more guaranteed to turn a 12 or 13 year old into a lifelong criminal than what I think you're implying by "real correction in behaviour"; aka a multi-year prison sentence.
Society had better correct that problem quickly or those two 12/13 year old kids are going to have ruined their lives by the time they turn 18. Something drastic has to be done, a slap on the wrist and sending them back to their parents isn't sufficient. Right now we fail on both sides of the pendulum, maybe its time to rethink things.
I do think Europe does deal better with this. Even in France, they have a fairly aggressive/intolerant police force, but a real correction focus once arrests/convictions have occurred.
The problem also cannot be corrected by letting them run wild until they are 18, and then locking them in a room until they are 50, and then releasing them.
Criminality is congenital. Social interventions will not fix the kid. Neither for that matter will prison, but at least it will protect the rest of us from his increasingly violent depredations.
This is a categorically disproven view. Thankfully, it's no longer widely held, but unfortunately not before it was used to justify millions of cruel acts from eugenics to genocide.
> Our real problem is just the pendulum swinging too far towards assuming people want to be good and they just need some compassion.
There's an entire field of study covering how ineffective punitive justice is. Unless the perpetrator at hand is literally an irredeemable monster, locking them away in a box until they're later released with even more stigmas, even further behind the curve, and without the ability to earn a living does nothing except push them right back to the anti-social behavior that put them on the radar of the justice system in the first place.
All evidence on the subject points to the same thing: the best predictor of who will be a criminal and who won't is their zip code, because of things like under-served communities and generational poverty. When you give people no options to make a living in a pro-social way, they will do it in an anti-social one.
Does that mean every person in the justice system just needs a firm pat on the back and to be released? Fuck no. But if you long term want to actually reduce crime, the evidence is in: you do that by improving home lives and giving communities the resources they need to grow, not by locking people up.
To be honest, there's also entire fields of study of how God makes everything in the world happen, so I doubt I'm much convinced by how many fields of studies there are. People have been able to bullshit each other over obvious things for eons. The existence of such fields means nothing.
Just to help not spread misinformation, the 12 year old was released as he was a passenger and police believe he was forced by the driver (his brother) into the car.
The 13 year old driver was not released and will remain in jail until his trial.
Our real problem is just the pendulum swinging too far towards assuming people want to be good and they just need some compassion.