3 ms·
Yes, and for good reason. NYC had a high crime rate in the 80s and 90s, once I was able to have my own day to day autonomy (mid teens, mid 2000s) the city was m
by 40acres 7y ago
Yes, and for good reason. NYC had a high crime rate in the 80s and 90s, once I was able to have my own day to day autonomy (mid teens, mid 2000s) the city was much safer.
I understand the push for crime reduction policies, lots of minorities (who are victims of crimes themselves) wanted a tougher approach. Unfortunately the politics of the day was that the cruelest types of punishments won out. Three strikes and stop and frisk have devastated the community.
- burfog 7y agoStop-and-frisk feels like a major violation of rights, but it does work well. I think that doing this by surprise, or around where people live, is problematic. Setting up a limited region, with posted signs, is pretty reasonable. For example, the park might be such a region. Three strikes doesn't seem to be a violation of rights, and it simply makes sense. Removing bad people will improve the community. Some people simply will not abide by the rules of civilized society, and it is a dangerous mistake to pretend otherwise.
- mises 7y agoIf you're in America, that would (arguably) be a violation of your constitutional rights. Basically, the gov't isn't supposed to bother you until you committed a crime (until they have reasonable suspicion & a warrant or are in hot pursuit). The same thing bothers me about databases, surveillance, biometrics, TSA, stop-and-frisk: the government has no business treating me like a criminal, collecting my information, etc. until they've got a warrant.