5 ms·

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

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?
  - lisper 6y ago
    You might start by providing them with a home.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      This is indeed the right thing to do. But I can easily imagine that out of 8 million people living in New York City, a certain number does not want to live at home and actually prefer staying outside.
      - lisper 6y ago
        This is an issue about which I happen to have some direct knowledge. I once made a documentary film about homelessness: http://graceofgodmovie.com/ http://graceofgodmovie.com/ And you're right, there are some people who are homeless by choice, but they are a tiny, tiny minority, probably less than 1% of the homeless population.
        AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
        So, I've just checked the HUD report [1] and apparently in NY about 5% of homeless are what they call "unsheltered". I sincerely wonder why. My "off-the-top" theory would be that these people are either indeed homeless by choice or they are such assholes that not a single shelter would tolerate them. How wrong am I? [1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/ https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-...
        lisper 6y ago
        > How wrong am I? Very. Did you actually read the report? The answer is right there: "On a single night in 2019, roughly 568,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. Nearly two-thirds (63%) were staying in sheltered locations—emergency shelters or transitional housing programs—and more than one-third (37%) were in unsheltered locations such as on the street, in abandoned buildings, or in other places not suitable for human habitation." So being unsheltered has nothing at all to do with being voluntarily homeless. These are completely orthogonal matters. In fact, the HUD report does not deal with voluntary homelessness at all, almost certainly because the number of such people is so small that they can be safely discounted for public policy purposes. It is also really hard to assess whether someone is voluntarily homeless. My film was shot in Santa Monica, CA. One of the subjects I interviewed had reliable income, enough to pay the rent somewhere, but not in Santa Monica. Given the choice between being on the street in Santa Monica and being in a low-rent apartment in some random place far from home, he chose to stay in Santa Monica. But all else being equal he would have preferred to be inside. Is that person "voluntarily homeless"?
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  But doesn't this then introduce the problems with fines? They can be disproportionate and can also be viewed as a tax. Making them proportionate has other issues, such as effectively making it a non-punishment for some people who can optimize around it (people working under the table) and can easily lead to situations where corporations can structure themselves so they don't have to pay any significant fine with caught.
  - cies 6y ago
    Fines that are not income/wealth dependent are discriminating against those with less money, whom are overrepresented, and should thus logically be forbidden in a functioning democracy. I guess little proper functioning democracies according to my standards. Good point.
  - dannypgh 6y ago
    I agree that fines are not ideal, and I think these are interesting discussions we need to be having to think of better solutions, but I also want to be clear that fines are several orders of magnitude better than jailing people (and I think it goes without saying, even more orders of magnitude better than summary execution). I do think there's potential for more mandated community service as a response to antisocial behavior. Structure it so people don't have to miss work. A very large amount of the crimes we prosecute people for are either drug crimes or crimes because of poverty/economic inequality, and these are best addressed with public health and investment. Even some of the remaining economic crimes - like selling untaxed cigarettes (what Eric Garner was killed for) if they still happen probably don't need public enforcement. Give those that pay the taxes standing to sue those who don't pay the taxes. If those who are paying it aren't bothered enough to pay for enforcement, I don't see why others should be. Most of what we do in the name of policing is deal with problems that we'd be better off preventing or dealing with by someone other than a man with a gun. This is the low hanging fruit we should pursue immediately, and when we see what's left the opportunities and alternatives for further improvement should become clearer.
DebtDeflation 6y ago
What you're describing here are negative externalities. From an Economics perspective (I was an Econ major) the solution is neither to ignore them (as many libertarians do) nor to ban the activities, but rather to regulate them in such a way that you force the party creating the externalities to internalize the costs that they are imposing on others. Typically through some form of Pigouvian Tax, Cap and Trade scheme, or insurance requirement.

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?
- lisper 6y ago
  You might start by providing them with a home.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    This is indeed the right thing to do. But I can easily imagine that out of 8 million people living in New York City, a certain number does not want to live at home and actually prefer staying outside.
    - lisper 6y ago
      This is an issue about which I happen to have some direct knowledge. I once made a documentary film about homelessness: http://graceofgodmovie.com/ http://graceofgodmovie.com/ And you're right, there are some people who are homeless by choice, but they are a tiny, tiny minority, probably less than 1% of the homeless population.
      - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
        So, I've just checked the HUD report [1] and apparently in NY about 5% of homeless are what they call "unsheltered". I sincerely wonder why. My "off-the-top" theory would be that these people are either indeed homeless by choice or they are such assholes that not a single shelter would tolerate them. How wrong am I? [1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/ https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5948/2019-ahar-part-1-...
        lisper 6y ago
        > How wrong am I? Very. Did you actually read the report? The answer is right there: "On a single night in 2019, roughly 568,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. Nearly two-thirds (63%) were staying in sheltered locations—emergency shelters or transitional housing programs—and more than one-third (37%) were in unsheltered locations such as on the street, in abandoned buildings, or in other places not suitable for human habitation." So being unsheltered has nothing at all to do with being voluntarily homeless. These are completely orthogonal matters. In fact, the HUD report does not deal with voluntary homelessness at all, almost certainly because the number of such people is so small that they can be safely discounted for public policy purposes. It is also really hard to assess whether someone is voluntarily homeless. My film was shot in Santa Monica, CA. One of the subjects I interviewed had reliable income, enough to pay the rent somewhere, but not in Santa Monica. Given the choice between being on the street in Santa Monica and being in a low-rent apartment in some random place far from home, he chose to stay in Santa Monica. But all else being equal he would have preferred to be inside. Is that person "voluntarily homeless"?
SkyBelow 6y ago
But doesn't this then introduce the problems with fines? They can be disproportionate and can also be viewed as a tax. Making them proportionate has other issues, such as effectively making it a non-punishment for some people who can optimize around it (people working under the table) and can easily lead to situations where corporations can structure themselves so they don't have to pay any significant fine with caught.
- cies 6y ago
  Fines that are not income/wealth dependent are discriminating against those with less money, whom are overrepresented, and should thus logically be forbidden in a functioning democracy. I guess little proper functioning democracies according to my standards. Good point.
- dannypgh 6y ago
  I agree that fines are not ideal, and I think these are interesting discussions we need to be having to think of better solutions, but I also want to be clear that fines are several orders of magnitude better than jailing people (and I think it goes without saying, even more orders of magnitude better than summary execution). I do think there's potential for more mandated community service as a response to antisocial behavior. Structure it so people don't have to miss work. A very large amount of the crimes we prosecute people for are either drug crimes or crimes because of poverty/economic inequality, and these are best addressed with public health and investment. Even some of the remaining economic crimes - like selling untaxed cigarettes (what Eric Garner was killed for) if they still happen probably don't need public enforcement. Give those that pay the taxes standing to sue those who don't pay the taxes. If those who are paying it aren't bothered enough to pay for enforcement, I don't see why others should be. Most of what we do in the name of policing is deal with problems that we'd be better off preventing or dealing with by someone other than a man with a gun. This is the low hanging fruit we should pursue immediately, and when we see what's left the opportunities and alternatives for further improvement should become clearer.

DebtDeflation 6y ago

What you're describing here are negative externalities. From an Economics perspective (I was an Econ major) the solution is neither to ignore them (as many libertarians do) nor to ban the activities, but rather to regulate them in such a way that you force the party creating the externalities to internalize the costs that they are imposing on others. Typically through some form of Pigouvian Tax, Cap and Trade scheme, or insurance requirement.