Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
......no more than it'd work 100% to let Smoke's kid or others decide when he's had enough diversion sessions.


Nice try but you're really reaching now. I never he he should be able to decide for himself, did I?

What I said was, someone who has a financial interest in keeping him in the program should not be the one making the decision to keep him in the program.

Are you going to argue that point?

Yes. Seriously. Who should decide then? Yet another party? Who would that be that you are not going to also call part of the system?


That's the easy answer but IMO it's a cop-out and does not negate the fact that it's a huge conflict of interest to have people with a financial interest in a decision making that decision. You could ask "who better to write traffic tickets than trained LEOs" but that doesn't mean local police departments don't use traffic citations as a means of generating revenue rather than keeping the public safe. That's wrong plain and simple.

So my answer to your question is, "someone without a vested financial interest in the decision." Or if you prefer, remove the financial incentive to keep people "in the system" or make the financial incentive results-oriented (percentage of re-offenders) rather than what it is now.


A wise man is frequently humbled.