Is it better policy to prosecute every petty crime anyone ever commits, without ever considering any other alternatives? Does it make sense to rely on prosecutorial discretion, at least to a point? What about situations where the person broke into an abandoned property to sleep, or stole food for their family? Does it make more sense to prosecute and jail them (both of which are extremely expensive) or to help them find housing (which is far cheaper)? What about an addict who deals to support his habit? Is jail ($$$$) a better option than treatment ($)?
As I said, I understand what Rachel Rollins is trying to do but I'm not entirely on board with her policy. I think that these are questions worthy of open and honest debate. We're all in this together and our resources aren't infinite.
Maybe, maybe not. There's still no reason to publish (or post) hysterical, melodramatic stories loaded with misinformation and lies.
I didn't spin a thing. I posted what your article claimed, and then I followed the link in that same article to read the actual policy. Then I posted that and compared the two. Finally, I pointed out that your source wasn't describing the policy honestly. Calling a liar out on his lies isn't spin.
Why can't you support your beliefs (or criticize mine) without relying on lies? It it really so hard to come up with an honest, informed, data-supported refutation to a liberal policy?