11 ms·

You are building the assumption that the thieves are super-poor and starving. Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry. It is possible s

You are building the assumption that the thieves are super-poor and starving. Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry. It is possible some of these thieves are just down on their luck. But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money. You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry. They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.

taurath 5y ago
> Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry. It is not. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/thousands-pour-into-fair-park-for-north-texas-food-banks-largest-distribution-yet-during-pandemic/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/tho... https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-united-states-health-hunger-2c509e7e1ce108c47287b42315e2a0c3 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-un... > But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money. I don't think there are zero consequences to stealing, even under a "cops won't show up for low amounts of theft" policy. > You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry. Not the case. I believe thefts are almost finely tuned along with economic problems. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf - see page 52, and 53. The less people have, the more burglaries they do. Also page 53, the more income inequality in an area, the more robberies take place. SF is one of the places with the highest income inequality in the country. To summarize: more poor people, more burglaries. Take the reverse, robberies are primarily carried out by poor people. > They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive. I would say your view is naïve about some inherent evil of people from a moralistic perspective directed at the poor. You seem to think its that people are greedy - sure, everyone is greedy to a point. Who are the most greedy in society? Who gets the longest prison terms? A white collar criminal embezzling a million dollars or someone who takes a coke from a convenience store? My view is its a condemnation of our extremely rich society that people must resort to shoplifting. I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Broke people are gonna steal more often - that shouldn't be controversial. The study above, shows that places where EVERYONE is poor people steal less. In places where some are very poor compared to the richest, people steal more. You will see some anecdote about some band of merry professional thieves who live in a nice apartment somewhere - that is the outlier, not the norm. Just like the idea of the "welfare queen", its time to stop thinking along jingoistic terms about criminal justice in the US. Again, we have 25% of the prison population IN THE WORLD.
- lubujackson 5y ago
  The problem is that the solutions that SF is doing to reduce poverty and inequality are blind to unintended consequences, even when they cause the opposite of the intended goal. Sure, less prosecution means less ruined lives for convicted criminals... but it also leads to much more crime, and it is hard to argue that (unless you change the definition of crime/crime reporting, which is exactly SF's move here). Anyone who has lived in SF for 10+ years can see the marked difference across the board for things like car break-ins and store theft. This isn't just one-off "anecdotal" evidence but across the board changes. Walgreen's is a good example - the store near me had very little crime at one point, then crime increased: brazen theft, roving groups of teenagers locusting the store repeatedly, holdups at gunpoint, more and more things put behind glass, employees quitting after being threatened repeatedly, a security guard getting hired by the store... next is store closing and I am not surprised so many in worse areas have closed and are closing. But we measure reported crimes so they optimize for that, not actually making anything better for anyone. If the DA won't prosecute, the cops don't arrest anyone - no reason for them to bother. And if the cops won't show up, the store won't bother reporting it. And because the gov't can play the media game with fudged numbers, hey our plan is working. But anyone remotely close to the situation can see the causal reality of this whole mess. Most of this comes down to arrogance of policymakers/sympathizers who think they know what people want are need. It is a lot of white knighting. If you haven't actually been poor or been part of a poor environment, you end up looking at stats and trying to "save" people with policy, but ignoring people's desire for independence. People do not steal apples from Walgreen's because they are starving. How things actually work is people go rob Walgreen's for razor blades and shampoo, then go sell them to neighbors at a discount - cash is the goal and cash is freedom. People buy stolen goods because they are cheap and they need cash for other things. What nobody wants is to fill out forms in triplicate to be told which government shampoo they are allowed to have for free - that makes people feel like shit across the board.

taurath 5y ago

> Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry. It is not. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/thousands-pour-into-fair-park-for-north-texas-food-banks-largest-distribution-yet-during-pandemic/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/11/14/tho... https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-united-states-health-hunger-2c509e7e1ce108c47287b42315e2a0c3 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-un... > But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money. I don't think there are zero consequences to stealing, even under a "cops won't show up for low amounts of theft" policy. > You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry. Not the case. I believe thefts are almost finely tuned along with economic problems. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232084.pdf - see page 52, and 53. The less people have, the more burglaries they do. Also page 53, the more income inequality in an area, the more robberies take place. SF is one of the places with the highest income inequality in the country. To summarize: more poor people, more burglaries. Take the reverse, robberies are primarily carried out by poor people. > They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive. I would say your view is naïve about some inherent evil of people from a moralistic perspective directed at the poor. You seem to think its that people are greedy - sure, everyone is greedy to a point. Who are the most greedy in society? Who gets the longest prison terms? A white collar criminal embezzling a million dollars or someone who takes a coke from a convenience store? My view is its a condemnation of our extremely rich society that people must resort to shoplifting. I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Broke people are gonna steal more often - that shouldn't be controversial. The study above, shows that places where EVERYONE is poor people steal less. In places where some are very poor compared to the richest, people steal more. You will see some anecdote about some band of merry professional thieves who live in a nice apartment somewhere - that is the outlier, not the norm. Just like the idea of the "welfare queen", its time to stop thinking along jingoistic terms about criminal justice in the US. Again, we have 25% of the prison population IN THE WORLD.

lubujackson 5y ago
The problem is that the solutions that SF is doing to reduce poverty and inequality are blind to unintended consequences, even when they cause the opposite of the intended goal. Sure, less prosecution means less ruined lives for convicted criminals... but it also leads to much more crime, and it is hard to argue that (unless you change the definition of crime/crime reporting, which is exactly SF's move here). Anyone who has lived in SF for 10+ years can see the marked difference across the board for things like car break-ins and store theft. This isn't just one-off "anecdotal" evidence but across the board changes. Walgreen's is a good example - the store near me had very little crime at one point, then crime increased: brazen theft, roving groups of teenagers locusting the store repeatedly, holdups at gunpoint, more and more things put behind glass, employees quitting after being threatened repeatedly, a security guard getting hired by the store... next is store closing and I am not surprised so many in worse areas have closed and are closing. But we measure reported crimes so they optimize for that, not actually making anything better for anyone. If the DA won't prosecute, the cops don't arrest anyone - no reason for them to bother. And if the cops won't show up, the store won't bother reporting it. And because the gov't can play the media game with fudged numbers, hey our plan is working. But anyone remotely close to the situation can see the causal reality of this whole mess. Most of this comes down to arrogance of policymakers/sympathizers who think they know what people want are need. It is a lot of white knighting. If you haven't actually been poor or been part of a poor environment, you end up looking at stats and trying to "save" people with policy, but ignoring people's desire for independence. People do not steal apples from Walgreen's because they are starving. How things actually work is people go rob Walgreen's for razor blades and shampoo, then go sell them to neighbors at a discount - cash is the goal and cash is freedom. People buy stolen goods because they are cheap and they need cash for other things. What nobody wants is to fill out forms in triplicate to be told which government shampoo they are allowed to have for free - that makes people feel like shit across the board.