14 yr old pilot

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
"joyriding" had averse effect

Evidence please?

Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that
reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
"joyriding" had averse effect

Evidence please?

Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that
reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
"joyriding" had averse effect

Evidence please?

Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for
that
reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided
to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that
the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) , I
fell no obligation to respond. I suggest you spend your own time researching
how auto thefts have changed on the past 20 or so years from "joyriding" to
profession car theft rings/chop shops, some even run but police officers.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided
to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that
the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) , I
fell no obligation to respond.

Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that distinguishing
joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect", and b) then revised their
laws accordingly. In reply, I pointed out that you have no evidence
whatsoever for the "adverse effect" you alleged in a), and that you are
demonstrably mistaken about b) in the two (not "many") cases you later cited
(Colorado and Arizona).

I don't even know what you mean by my "propensity to add conditions and
qualifiers" (which conditions? which qualifiers?), but regardless, I was
merely pointing out that you are apparently trying to support your policy
agenda by deciding to believe (and to assert as fact) things for which you
have no evidence.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less
effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature
decided
to
boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think
that
the
previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have
been
pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound
evidence.

Since that was neither the issue, nor the question (you seem to have a
strong propensity to add conditions and qualifiers to your responses) ,
I
fell no obligation to respond.

Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that
distinguishing
joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect", and b) then revised
their
laws accordingly.

Which is beyond the point that your extended three or four times so go play
with yourself.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Huh? You flatly asserted that "many states" a) found out that
distinguishing joyriding from theft had had an "adverse effect",
and b) then revised their laws accordingly.

Which is beyond the point that your extended three or four times
so go play with yourself.

How to sustain a belief in an untenable ideology: 1) Make up fake facts as
needed. 2) When your bluff is called, admit no error; resort to inchoate
insults instead.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to
"joyriding" had averse effect

Evidence please?

Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that
reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect
there's more than just the two I'm familiar with.

In addition to your having no evidence to support your assertion that lesser
penalties for unauthorized joyriding have been found to have "adverse
effect", it turns out that the criminal codes in both Colorado and Arizona
(the only examples you cited) do in fact provide for lesser offenses and
penalties for joyriding than for theft.

Arizona's article 13-1803 defines the offense of "Unlawful use of means of
transportation": "A person commits unlawful use of means of transportation
if, without intent permanently to deprive, the person either: 1. Knowingly
takes unauthorized control over another person's means of transportation. 2.
Knowingly is transported or physically located in a vehicle that the person
knows or has reason to know is in the unlawful possession of another person
pursuant to paragraph 1 or section 13-1814.".

Colorado makes an even more sweeping distinction between theft and temporary
unauthorized use. In Colorado, the distinction isn't limited to vehicles,
but applies to theft in general. Colorado's article 18-4-401 defines theft
as follows: "(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or
exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization,
or by threat or deception, and: (a) Intends to deprive the other person
permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or (b) Knowingly
uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive
the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or (c) Uses, conceals,
or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment, or
abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and
benefit; or (d) Demands any consideration to which he is not legally
entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other
person."

--Gary