5 ms·

But violent crime is down over the last 30-years, seems to be more cops employed and less petty crime laws being enforced. Doesn’t quite make sense but I often

But violent crime is down over the last 30-years, seems to be more cops employed and less petty crime laws being enforced. Doesn’t quite make sense but I often hear this excuse.

dependenttypes 7y ago
They are too busy going after victimless crimes.
tialaramex 7y ago
Are more cops employed? In the UK at least police numbers were cut drastically. One of the many hilarious pledges of the newly elected Tory government of the UK is that they'd hire lots of extra police to fix problems that some might argue were caused by the er... Tory government which had cut police numbers...
runarberg 7y ago
I think we need to start thinking about scammers as violent criminals. Victims of scammers do feel extremely violated after the fact. They loose not only valuables, but also their dignity and their sense of security. Scamming is indeed a violent crime that causes significant harm to the victim. I also get the sense that there is still a lot of victim blaming when it comes to scamming. This also has to change. Victims of scams have not done anything wrong. The criminals that scam other people are of full blame for their crimes, and they need to be brought to justice for their violent behaviour.
- hashkb 7y ago
  Can't just change the definition of violent. Agree that the crime is much more serious than it looks on the surface. There's probably a perfect word. Predatory?
  - runarberg 7y ago
    Violence is already really loosely defined (e.g. violence seems to be done up the social hierarchy; e.g. a state is not considered violent if they deport a refugee, while a protestor is considered violent if they block traffic). But even in this loose definition scammers fit perfectly as being violent criminals. They intentionally cause significant harm to their victims with their actions. A lot of definitions put a physical qualifier, but that is not how the term is used by English speakers, e.g. bullying or psychological tormenting, is violent even though it is only verbal.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > vi·o·lence | ˈvī(ə)ləns | noun > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. In every definition, violence requires physical force. Nobody calls psychological abuse violence, they call it "gaslighting" or "bullying" or "emotional trauma".
      - afiori 7y ago
        I would argue that violence also include "threats of physical force being applied," which is in many places the bar for aggression
        appleshore 7y ago
        If there can be violent threats, then there can be emotional violence.
        afiori 7y ago
        Sure, but that is different from physical violence or threat of physical violence. Not to mean it is inherently less serious, but I would argue that they need to be treated as part of different categories. I would also argue that emotional and psychological abuse should be considered a serious crime, but I am not convinced that conflating it with violence is appropriate. I realize that my categories leave a blind spot for more subtle method of bullying, especially in intrinsically violence-free cases like cyber-bullying or "intense-gossiping" which can be seriously damaging. Still I do not think that classifying that as violence in and of itself is an appropriate solution.
- appleshore 7y ago
  Both local police and the FBI rarely care about fraud or scams. Most local fraud seems to be caught by individuals hiring private investigators that are former law enforcement. And even then, the punishment to the con-artist is often 1-2 years. It’s even worse if you use a credit card, get skimmed, have money stolen from you then your credit card company tries to deny your claim. No where in this situation are there police going to the ATM to view the video surveillance of who stole your money. Most law enforcement seems to rely on identity fraudsters being high on drugs in cheap hotels and being caught with hardware / stolen cards etc etc.

But violent crime is down over the last 30-years, seems to be more cops employed and less petty crime laws being enforced. Doesn’t quite make sense but I often hear this excuse.

dependenttypes 7y ago

They are too busy going after victimless crimes.

tialaramex 7y ago

Are more cops employed? In the UK at least police numbers were cut drastically. One of the many hilarious pledges of the newly elected Tory government of the UK is that they'd hire lots of extra police to fix problems that some might argue were caused by the er... Tory government which had cut police numbers...

runarberg 7y ago

I think we need to start thinking about scammers as violent criminals. Victims of scammers do feel extremely violated after the fact. They loose not only valuables, but also their dignity and their sense of security. Scamming is indeed a violent crime that causes significant harm to the victim. I also get the sense that there is still a lot of victim blaming when it comes to scamming. This also has to change. Victims of scams have not done anything wrong. The criminals that scam other people are of full blame for their crimes, and they need to be brought to justice for their violent behaviour.

hashkb 7y ago
Can't just change the definition of violent. Agree that the crime is much more serious than it looks on the surface. There's probably a perfect word. Predatory?
- runarberg 7y ago
  Violence is already really loosely defined (e.g. violence seems to be done up the social hierarchy; e.g. a state is not considered violent if they deport a refugee, while a protestor is considered violent if they block traffic). But even in this loose definition scammers fit perfectly as being violent criminals. They intentionally cause significant harm to their victims with their actions. A lot of definitions put a physical qualifier, but that is not how the term is used by English speakers, e.g. bullying or psychological tormenting, is violent even though it is only verbal.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > vi·o·lence | ˈvī(ə)ləns | noun > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. In every definition, violence requires physical force. Nobody calls psychological abuse violence, they call it "gaslighting" or "bullying" or "emotional trauma".
    - afiori 7y ago
      I would argue that violence also include "threats of physical force being applied," which is in many places the bar for aggression
      - appleshore 7y ago
        If there can be violent threats, then there can be emotional violence.
        afiori 7y ago
        Sure, but that is different from physical violence or threat of physical violence. Not to mean it is inherently less serious, but I would argue that they need to be treated as part of different categories. I would also argue that emotional and psychological abuse should be considered a serious crime, but I am not convinced that conflating it with violence is appropriate. I realize that my categories leave a blind spot for more subtle method of bullying, especially in intrinsically violence-free cases like cyber-bullying or "intense-gossiping" which can be seriously damaging. Still I do not think that classifying that as violence in and of itself is an appropriate solution.
appleshore 7y ago
Both local police and the FBI rarely care about fraud or scams. Most local fraud seems to be caught by individuals hiring private investigators that are former law enforcement. And even then, the punishment to the con-artist is often 1-2 years. It’s even worse if you use a credit card, get skimmed, have money stolen from you then your credit card company tries to deny your claim. No where in this situation are there police going to the ATM to view the video surveillance of who stole your money. Most law enforcement seems to rely on identity fraudsters being high on drugs in cheap hotels and being caught with hardware / stolen cards etc etc.