5 ms·

>I’ve reached the point where the problem is more than just the equipment, it’s the culture. This is absolutely true, but the problem goes much deeper than jus

>I’ve reached the point where the problem is more than just the equipment, it’s the culture. This is absolutely true, but the problem goes much deeper than just the police force itself. We seem to want to solve every imaginable social problem with police/courts/prisons. Drug abuse needs to be viewed as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. Homelessness as a housing and mental health problem, not a criminal one. Many other issues as economic problems not criminal ones. Address the root cause, rather than sending people with badges and guns. I realize this is easier said than done, but it's clear the old approach is no longer acceptable to society.

mmsimanga 6y ago
This! In my country there was a push back by teacher unions because the expectations on teachers has grown over the years. Laws now prohibit many forms of punishment, some schools now have metal detectors at the gate to stop students coming in with knives.
cies 6y ago
Maybe "the right not to be prosecuted for a victimless crime" should be an amendment. Then homelessness/drugs-whatevers/prostitution can no longer have laws against them. "Address the root cause", exactly, and the root cause is the unjust laws. Though cops pretty much never being found guilty for unjust use of violence is a big one too, and I wonder what law changes can solve that issue.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  > the right not to be prosecuted for a victimless crime So if I'm driving drunk, then I'm not prosecuted until there's a victim? Hm...
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I wouldn't necessarily say that DUI is a victimless crime. you might not hurt anyone, but you've exposed everyone on the road to excess risk, which could be argued is a type of harm. I'm not sure jail time is necessary for DUI. having your license suspended is already a severe punishment in places where you really need a vehicle to get around. requiring an interlock whenever the person is allowed to drive again also mitigates the risk to others in the future. of course, then you would have to decide what to do with people who just drive a friend's car or drive on a suspended license... I think this might be a good example of a larger structural problem. culturally, we accept that going to a bar with friends or having a few glasses of wine at a restaurant is a reasonable thing for an adult to do. but a large portion of the US is set up in a way that bars and restaurants are not within walking distance of homes, and the public transit is poor or nonexistent. if I, a 145 lb male, have a cocktail and a glass of wine at dinner, I'm pretty likely to be above the legal limit by the time I leave. I don't do this; I either drink less or arrange a different way to get home, but I do think the combination of law, culture, and (lack of) infrastructure pushes people towards committing a crime here.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      Well, here we step on a slippery slope of defining a "victimless" crime. Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm. Should the harm be purely physical? Homelessness is a public nuisance, which we can choose to ignore, but so is walking naked in a school yard, which will be seen as a much more controversial subject.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        tbh, I'm in favor of treating DUI more as a liability thing (ie, automatic fault in the case of an accident and multiplied damages) rather than a crime itself, but that's a pretty controversial position that I didn't want to bring into the debate. plus it has its own issues; liability is not much of a deterrent for someone with minimal assets and/or income.
        AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
        Making DUI a liability thing is such a simple, clean and straightforward thing to do that I wish it worked. But: - for it to work people should estimate the risks correctly - most people caught DUIing apparently are quite bad in understanding the risks involved
      - freeflight 6y ago
        > Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm. To the user, which is a risk they chose to take. Now you could argue that the illicit trade is causing harm, but that's the direct result of criminalization and not of people choosing to consume substances.
        fongitosous 6y ago
        sure illegal drugs only affect users. and the user affected by illegal drugs don't loose any notion of right/wrong and can harm other people
        cies 6y ago
  - Zigurd 6y ago
    DUI is mostly deterred with civil penalties. This argument is not fully applicable to the question of victimless crimes.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    This isn't too far afield of the status quo. I mean, if you've had a few drinks and get in your car, you're not going to be automatically stopped and ticketed. Instead you're weighing the risk that a cop is going to just happen to catch you. If the laws are changed so that driving drunk isn't presumptively a crime, but rather that if you're in a crash and found to have high levels of alcohol in your blood, then the crash is assumed to be your fault and will have extremely high penalties, then the difference is just in the details. You'd be balancing a lower risk, but of a much higher cost. That might not work as well because of some people having poor skills at discounting future risks, but it's not obvious that's the case. It deserves further investigation.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  The problem is the notion of victimless. There are crimes that put people at risk but don't always create a victim. Do we allow for crimes that have a risk of a victim even if there isn't a direct victim? There are crimes where we say that someone is a victim despite their own feelings of being victimized or having suffered a crime. Do those stay as well? We have crimes where there isn't someone physically hurt and not a direct theft, but there is a reduction in value of items. Do those crimes stay? Take zoning laws. Is violating a zoning law victimless? If I open a foul smelling poultry factory in the middle of a downtown commercial zone, it could greatly negatively impact that commercial zone to the point where businesses would not be able to afford to stay open. But if that makes it a victim crime, then what about when homeless people living in that same area also drive away customers to the point it no longer functions as a commercial zone? As for drugs, what happens when companies start selling direct to users? Antibiotics and opioids without needing a doctor's prescription. We already have seen the problems even when doctor prescriptions are required, imagine what happens if drugs are declared a victimless crime and no longer prosecuted. I think the notion that some crimes are victimless is based on looking at specific incidents that don't have victims and not considering it at scale. Which is to say that the example by the other poster of drunk driving might be a much more fairer comparison than what people originally took it as, because while the relation between the risk and possible victim is easier to understand, the question is if such a relationship is consistently used to justify a victim, not if the relationship is easy to understand.
  - cies 6y ago
    To most of these I'd say: make 'm offenses not crimes. As I see it: crimes make it punishable by jail time, offenses not.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      That's reasonable, but how do we punish (or otherwise deter) offenses? The most obvious answer seems to be to fine the offenders, but really, how do you fine a homeless person?
      - 6y ago
- neycoda 6y ago
  Homelessness/drugs/prostitution has splash and fallout damage to people directly involved and others such as disease-spreading, burgleries, and mental/physical damage. Having laws against them is just one way mitigate or minimize that damage, but of course dealing with the underlying cause should work better, but our country is not sympathetic to that kind of social spending. So we have a continual cycle of crime-punishment that doesn't mitigate enough, simply because the underlying problems remain, until our country stops with the "you're on your own" mentality and starts supporting social programs better.
  - cies 6y ago
    > splash and fallout damage So what? (Two) adults choose to have some interaction that all parties are happy with? Who are us outsiders to claim that their freedoms should be reduced? The best reason is "splash and fallout" damage? I dont know if you've seen how weed has been used to put people in cages. People in cages! And you come with "splash and fallout" damage as a justification... You lost me.

mmsimanga 6y ago

This! In my country there was a push back by teacher unions because the expectations on teachers has grown over the years. Laws now prohibit many forms of punishment, some schools now have metal detectors at the gate to stop students coming in with knives.

cies 6y ago

Maybe "the right not to be prosecuted for a victimless crime" should be an amendment. Then homelessness/drugs-whatevers/prostitution can no longer have laws against them. "Address the root cause", exactly, and the root cause is the unjust laws. Though cops pretty much never being found guilty for unjust use of violence is a big one too, and I wonder what law changes can solve that issue.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
> the right not to be prosecuted for a victimless crime So if I'm driving drunk, then I'm not prosecuted until there's a victim? Hm...
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I wouldn't necessarily say that DUI is a victimless crime. you might not hurt anyone, but you've exposed everyone on the road to excess risk, which could be argued is a type of harm. I'm not sure jail time is necessary for DUI. having your license suspended is already a severe punishment in places where you really need a vehicle to get around. requiring an interlock whenever the person is allowed to drive again also mitigates the risk to others in the future. of course, then you would have to decide what to do with people who just drive a friend's car or drive on a suspended license... I think this might be a good example of a larger structural problem. culturally, we accept that going to a bar with friends or having a few glasses of wine at a restaurant is a reasonable thing for an adult to do. but a large portion of the US is set up in a way that bars and restaurants are not within walking distance of homes, and the public transit is poor or nonexistent. if I, a 145 lb male, have a cocktail and a glass of wine at dinner, I'm pretty likely to be above the legal limit by the time I leave. I don't do this; I either drink less or arrange a different way to get home, but I do think the combination of law, culture, and (lack of) infrastructure pushes people towards committing a crime here.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    Well, here we step on a slippery slope of defining a "victimless" crime. Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm. Should the harm be purely physical? Homelessness is a public nuisance, which we can choose to ignore, but so is walking naked in a school yard, which will be seen as a much more controversial subject.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      tbh, I'm in favor of treating DUI more as a liability thing (ie, automatic fault in the case of an accident and multiplied damages) rather than a crime itself, but that's a pretty controversial position that I didn't want to bring into the debate. plus it has its own issues; liability is not much of a deterrent for someone with minimal assets and/or income.
      - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
        Making DUI a liability thing is such a simple, clean and straightforward thing to do that I wish it worked. But: - for it to work people should estimate the risks correctly - most people caught DUIing apparently are quite bad in understanding the risks involved
    - freeflight 6y ago
      > Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm. To the user, which is a risk they chose to take. Now you could argue that the illicit trade is causing harm, but that's the direct result of criminalization and not of people choosing to consume substances.
      - fongitosous 6y ago
        sure illegal drugs only affect users. and the user affected by illegal drugs don't loose any notion of right/wrong and can harm other people
      - cies 6y ago
- Zigurd 6y ago
  DUI is mostly deterred with civil penalties. This argument is not fully applicable to the question of victimless crimes.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  This isn't too far afield of the status quo. I mean, if you've had a few drinks and get in your car, you're not going to be automatically stopped and ticketed. Instead you're weighing the risk that a cop is going to just happen to catch you. If the laws are changed so that driving drunk isn't presumptively a crime, but rather that if you're in a crash and found to have high levels of alcohol in your blood, then the crash is assumed to be your fault and will have extremely high penalties, then the difference is just in the details. You'd be balancing a lower risk, but of a much higher cost. That might not work as well because of some people having poor skills at discounting future risks, but it's not obvious that's the case. It deserves further investigation.
SkyBelow 6y ago
The problem is the notion of victimless. There are crimes that put people at risk but don't always create a victim. Do we allow for crimes that have a risk of a victim even if there isn't a direct victim? There are crimes where we say that someone is a victim despite their own feelings of being victimized or having suffered a crime. Do those stay as well? We have crimes where there isn't someone physically hurt and not a direct theft, but there is a reduction in value of items. Do those crimes stay? Take zoning laws. Is violating a zoning law victimless? If I open a foul smelling poultry factory in the middle of a downtown commercial zone, it could greatly negatively impact that commercial zone to the point where businesses would not be able to afford to stay open. But if that makes it a victim crime, then what about when homeless people living in that same area also drive away customers to the point it no longer functions as a commercial zone? As for drugs, what happens when companies start selling direct to users? Antibiotics and opioids without needing a doctor's prescription. We already have seen the problems even when doctor prescriptions are required, imagine what happens if drugs are declared a victimless crime and no longer prosecuted. I think the notion that some crimes are victimless is based on looking at specific incidents that don't have victims and not considering it at scale. Which is to say that the example by the other poster of drunk driving might be a much more fairer comparison than what people originally took it as, because while the relation between the risk and possible victim is easier to understand, the question is if such a relationship is consistently used to justify a victim, not if the relationship is easy to understand.
- cies 6y ago
  To most of these I'd say: make 'm offenses not crimes. As I see it: crimes make it punishable by jail time, offenses not.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    That's reasonable, but how do we punish (or otherwise deter) offenses? The most obvious answer seems to be to fine the offenders, but really, how do you fine a homeless person?
    - 6y ago
neycoda 6y ago
Homelessness/drugs/prostitution has splash and fallout damage to people directly involved and others such as disease-spreading, burgleries, and mental/physical damage. Having laws against them is just one way mitigate or minimize that damage, but of course dealing with the underlying cause should work better, but our country is not sympathetic to that kind of social spending. So we have a continual cycle of crime-punishment that doesn't mitigate enough, simply because the underlying problems remain, until our country stops with the "you're on your own" mentality and starts supporting social programs better.
- cies 6y ago
  > splash and fallout damage So what? (Two) adults choose to have some interaction that all parties are happy with? Who are us outsiders to claim that their freedoms should be reduced? The best reason is "splash and fallout" damage? I dont know if you've seen how weed has been used to put people in cages. People in cages! And you come with "splash and fallout" damage as a justification... You lost me.