San Francisco authorities go co-co bananas

by LoveUniHateExams 10 Replies latest social current

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Authorities in SF have decided to 'sanitise' language around criminals.

    Because, yeah, that's the big problem facing San Francisco, not drug abuse, gangs, violence, people crapping in the street or illegal immigrants. Glad to know they've got their priorities sorted.

    Under this stunning and brave new scheme, a criminal who's served his sentence will be referred to as a 'returning resident who was involved with the justice system'. XD

    This is purely Orwellian. Control the language in an attempt to change the way people think.

    Meanwhile, there is actual crime going on and it needs to be tackled.

  • RubaDub

    L U H E ....

    Sounds like you must live in or near SF if it is bothering you.

    I've been to SF several times as a tourist and enjoyed it.

    Sorry about the problems in your backyard.

    Rub a Dub

  • nowwhat?

    New Proper term for criminal

    "Law abiding challenged"

  • LV101

    I think these are beyond "problems" and has reached epidemic proportions. Heart breaking -- SF is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, IMO, but who can enjoy it now. I don't care to return to this -- so cal is enough drama for me and here's hoping Orange County doesn't go "co-co bananas." The entire state is a liberal-infested horror story.

  • blondie

    So if these people are criminals, having done things more serious than using offensive language, and the other crimes could not be controlled, how to they think this one will work, and where will the money come from to enforce it?

  • peacefulpete

    San Francisco has one of lower violent crime rates in large American cities. Its murder rates are steadily falling to about 1/10th that of Detroit and about 1/3 that of Chicago. The overall crime rates result from a rash of vandalism, pick pocketing tourists and shoplifting.

    The proposal in San Francisco to change the language of the justice system might have merit.

    To quote the board that made the proposal:

    The board... in its “person-first” language proposal justified the changes by claiming that words like “prisoner,” “convict,” “inmate” or “felon” essentially “only serve to obstruct and separate people from society...Inaccurate information, unfounded assumptions, generalizations and other negative predispositions associated with justice-involved individuals create societal stigmas, attitudinal barriers, and continued negative stereotypes. We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,” Supervisor Matt Haney told the Chronicle. “We want them ultimately to become contributing citizens, and referring to them as felons is like a scarlet letter that they can never get away from.”

    Given the rates of recidivism and that the goal of incarceration is reform, maybe the proposal is worth a try if it helps these people reintegrate into society. Why Not?

  • LV101

    They may be lower in violent crimes but San Francisco rates No 1 in the US for property and all other crimes not considered "violent" -- big deal!

    Seattle was addressing their homeless crisis but now citizens have little faith that the government can handle it. It's obviously not as severe as San Francisco/Los Angeles.

  • peacefulpete

    We just vacationed there and had a wonderful time but we were wisely warned to never leave things visible in the car and park in secure garages when we were leaving it behind. According to the Scanner newspaper, this epidemic of car break-ins and pickpockets targeting the millions of tourists account for the high property crimes. It is the crime de jour. I just commented on this because it seems some want to paint San Francisco as a dangerous place for some reason. Its not.

  • peacefulpete

    San Francisco's homeless stats are troubling. There seems to be the opinion that the problem is the different approaches to addressing the issue. East coast cities have generally adopted a quick solution of building homeless shelters and compelling homeless to stay in them, whereas west coast cities have taken a strategy of building low cost housing and elevating the homeless. Unfortunately they have had budget shortfalls in those programs and have left thousands of people without adequate housing or shelters. A debate about which is a better strategy will be contentious. One strategy keeps the homeless out of sight and probably safer but doesn't help them change their situation, while the other has high intentions and has genuinely helped some but is inadequately funded leaving many without even basic shelter.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    because it seems some want to paint San Francisco as a dangerous place for some reason - that wasn't the reason I posted the OP.

    I was more concerned with the Orwellian use of language being proposed by the state authorities. It would be hilarious if the subject matter weren't so serious.

Share this