4 ms·

Look into the Broken Windows theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If you let crimina

Look into the Broken Windows theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If you let criminals get away with breaking into someone's house and stealing things, it sends a message to other people that crime is allowed. Crime rates start to rise because no one is doing anything about it. People who were not criminals before are now comfortable being criminals because they know they won't be caught. If you don't prosecute the small crimes, it often leads to bigger crimes.

mlevental 7y ago
I pre-empted you >deterrent so that it's not 4%? My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  > My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel. So you're saying punitive damages (should) violate the 8th amendment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
  - mlevental 7y ago
    Yes I think I'm comfortable with that position.
- freehunter 7y ago
  No, your response indicates you do not understand the broken windows theory at all. I would suggest you go back and read it. I linked it for a reason. You're imprisoning criminals for the crimes they committed, not just to send a message. But imprisoning criminals for committing crimes does send a message and that message is that crime is not tolerated. You might be okay with someone breaking into your house to steal your personal property without your permission but I'm going to guess you're not okay with someone breaking into your house and murdering your entire family. Would you then argue that it would be cruel to imprison the murderer? Because it would just be to "send a message" the murder is wrong? No, of course not. They committed a crime, and that's what they're being punished for. Punishing criminals does not reduce the crime rate. It's the act of not punishing them that increases the crime rate. Note that this comment does not remove the need for you to read the linked wiki article.
  - mlevental 7y ago
    I responded to your comment rather than broken windows policy, on which the consensus is not at all as solid as your tone suggests https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/ https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-poli... >recent systematic review by Braga, Welsh and Schnell (2015) found that policing strategies focused on disorder overall had a statistically significant, modest impact on reducing all types of crime. This positive effect was driven by the success of place-based, problem-oriented interventions. In contrast, there was no significant overall impact of aggressive order maintenance strategies. Thus, they conclude that police can successfully reduce disorder and non-disorder crime through disorder policing efforts, but the types of strategies matter. That was entailed in me conceding that letting these people go free would probably bump the shrink to 4%. Now your comment was >If you let criminals get away with breaking into someone's house and stealing things, it sends a message to other people that crime is allowed. To which I explicitly called back to by responding >My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel.
__s 7y ago
This isn't broken windows He's pointing out that the 3% margin should exist evenly, so adding 1% theft on top means you'll hit 4%. So in order to pull of this stunt, they needed to make sure their margins were below 3%. But if you can get your margins below 3%, then why isn't that mandated? This is forgiving people who break windows, but not people who carefully don't break windows so that they can then purposefully break windows as often as most people accidentally break windows
- freehunter 7y ago
  If that's the case, then they're woefully misinformed about the realities of retail. 3% shrinkage is accepted because below that it's mostly unpreventable accidental damages. Above that is either theft or preventable accidental damages. If my server logs say I had three errors today but everything is running fine, I'm probably going to let it slide. I have more important things to work on. If they say there have been 100 errors today, even if everything seems to be working fine I'm going to take the time to investigate and probably push a patch. Not that those 3 errors aren't important, but it's hardly worth my time to track down every error unless something is broken. Either way it's interpreted, it's not a terribly insightful comment.

mlevental 7y ago

I pre-empted you >deterrent so that it's not 4%? My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel.

mehrdadn 7y ago
> My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel. So you're saying punitive damages (should) violate the 8th amendment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
- mlevental 7y ago
  Yes I think I'm comfortable with that position.
freehunter 7y ago
No, your response indicates you do not understand the broken windows theory at all. I would suggest you go back and read it. I linked it for a reason. You're imprisoning criminals for the crimes they committed, not just to send a message. But imprisoning criminals for committing crimes does send a message and that message is that crime is not tolerated. You might be okay with someone breaking into your house to steal your personal property without your permission but I'm going to guess you're not okay with someone breaking into your house and murdering your entire family. Would you then argue that it would be cruel to imprison the murderer? Because it would just be to "send a message" the murder is wrong? No, of course not. They committed a crime, and that's what they're being punished for. Punishing criminals does not reduce the crime rate. It's the act of not punishing them that increases the crime rate. Note that this comment does not remove the need for you to read the linked wiki article.
- mlevental 7y ago
  I responded to your comment rather than broken windows policy, on which the consensus is not at all as solid as your tone suggests https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/ https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-poli... >recent systematic review by Braga, Welsh and Schnell (2015) found that policing strategies focused on disorder overall had a statistically significant, modest impact on reducing all types of crime. This positive effect was driven by the success of place-based, problem-oriented interventions. In contrast, there was no significant overall impact of aggressive order maintenance strategies. Thus, they conclude that police can successfully reduce disorder and non-disorder crime through disorder policing efforts, but the types of strategies matter. That was entailed in me conceding that letting these people go free would probably bump the shrink to 4%. Now your comment was >If you let criminals get away with breaking into someone's house and stealing things, it sends a message to other people that crime is allowed. To which I explicitly called back to by responding >My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel.

__s 7y ago

This isn't broken windows He's pointing out that the 3% margin should exist evenly, so adding 1% theft on top means you'll hit 4%. So in order to pull of this stunt, they needed to make sure their margins were below 3%. But if you can get your margins below 3%, then why isn't that mandated? This is forgiving people who break windows, but not people who carefully don't break windows so that they can then purposefully break windows as often as most people accidentally break windows

freehunter 7y ago
If that's the case, then they're woefully misinformed about the realities of retail. 3% shrinkage is accepted because below that it's mostly unpreventable accidental damages. Above that is either theft or preventable accidental damages. If my server logs say I had three errors today but everything is running fine, I'm probably going to let it slide. I have more important things to work on. If they say there have been 100 errors today, even if everything seems to be working fine I'm going to take the time to investigate and probably push a patch. Not that those 3 errors aren't important, but it's hardly worth my time to track down every error unless something is broken. Either way it's interpreted, it's not a terribly insightful comment.