3 ms·
For me, it's a systems design problem. How do you design a law enforcement system that (1) doesn't grind down poor and minorities the way the current system do
by csense 5y ago
For me, it's a systems design problem.
How do you design a law enforcement system that (1) doesn't grind down poor and minorities the way the current system does, yet (2) still makes punishment for minor crimes like shoplifting sufficiently swift, sure, and severe to be an effective deterrent?
Liberals tend to say "Let's focus on (1) and ignore (2)," while conservatives say "Let's focus on (2) and ignore (1)."
Is it possible to create a system satisfies both concerns? Or is there some fundamental reason that we can never have both? Do we need to pick exactly one of {(1), (2)} and just accept that we'll be stuck with whatever we decide is the lesser of two evils?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lamontcg 5y agoGet people jobs, get them off drugs and give them something to hope for so that you don't have to use law enforcement as the solution?
- antisthenes 5y agoThis. The best deterrent to crime is giving the criminal something to lose in the case of being arrested. And no, taking away freedom isn't really much of a deterrent if all you have to your name is $100 and a few sets of clothing and some old furniture. I bet people with steady jobs and with secure housing commit crimes at a rate of 0.1x (or less) of those who don't.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoWhat if they don't want jobs and don't want off drugs? Can we force them? We can throw all the money we want at this problem, but at the end of the day, the person has to be somewhat willing to get their life back together, or we are just waiting it. It is not like most of them didn't have housing/work before their addiction started. The "I got addicted to drugs because I lost my housing and job" isn't as common as the other way around. The reason the problem is so bad now is that really bad drugs that mess people up a lot are much easier to get these days. Many of those people are never coming back, even if you gave them food and shelter for life.
- lamontcg 5y agoA good chunk of the people arguing to throw them all in prison are probably one good car accident away from getting hooked on opiates to get through the chronic back pain and winding up like them. Might be you. And you cannot force people to stop drugs, but most of them really don't want to be doing what they're doing, but they need a way out to be there when they try to find it. Tossing them in jail doesn't work and we can't lock them away for life or execute them. And they need housing (even while they're on drugs) and they need a job when they start getting clean, or they'll relapse. You can't force anything, which is kind of the point about why treating it with the criminal justice system is stupid.
- josephcsible 5y ago> A good chunk of the people arguing to throw them all in prison are probably one good car accident away from getting hooked on opiates to get through the chronic back pain and winding up like them. Might be you. If I ever start stealing from people to get drugs, please do throw me in prison too with the rest of them all, even if the root cause was legitimately prescribed painkillers.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoSo if we can’t fix people that easily once they get addicted to drugs, let’s spend most of our resources trying to prevent addiction in the first place. I’m all for throwing a ton of resources at at-risk kids and making addiction prevention during hospitalizations a number one priority. It’s just that the problem becomes too hard to solve once the damage is done, so focus on avoiding the damage. And now you know the secret of all those European countries that have less crime and drug problems than we do.