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-b

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.