3 ms·

> It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true. You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that proper

> It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true. You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that property crime goes severely under-reported[1]. Also, people are drastically less likely to report crime when it is obviously nothing will happen and it cost more than the value of whatever was taken. Walmart loses millions on theft every year, they could stop it but stopping it would cost more than doing nothing. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...

fitblipper 5y ago
I think the point is, since the numbers don't show an uptick in property crime while others are reporting an increase, the only explanation for that is for the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen?
- QuikAccount 5y ago
  The article itself gives a few plausible reasons with police blaming the DA and the DA blaming the police. > Some former police officials said in interviews that officers don’t feel it is worth making an arrest in low-level cases because they assume the district attorney won’t file charges. They also point to a statewide ballot measure passed in 2014—Proposition 47—that raised the dollar amount at which theft can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950. > Mr. Boudin has pointed the finger back at the police, arguing that the certainty of arrest is low in San Francisco compared with other cities. More consistent arrests of criminals, he has said, would be a more powerful deterrent than the length of prison sentences. Regardless of what side you take, combine an increase in crime with the fact it is unlikely that people will be prosecuted or arrested and it seems reasonable to think that could lead people to just deciding it isn't worth the time to report the crime.
- leereeves 5y ago
  > the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen? Because the same policy causes both. DA's refusing to prosecute encourages shoplifting and discourages reporting.

fitblipper 5y ago

I think the point is, since the numbers don't show an uptick in property crime while others are reporting an increase, the only explanation for that is for the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen?

QuikAccount 5y ago
The article itself gives a few plausible reasons with police blaming the DA and the DA blaming the police. > Some former police officials said in interviews that officers don’t feel it is worth making an arrest in low-level cases because they assume the district attorney won’t file charges. They also point to a statewide ballot measure passed in 2014—Proposition 47—that raised the dollar amount at which theft can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950. > Mr. Boudin has pointed the finger back at the police, arguing that the certainty of arrest is low in San Francisco compared with other cities. More consistent arrests of criminals, he has said, would be a more powerful deterrent than the length of prison sentences. Regardless of what side you take, combine an increase in crime with the fact it is unlikely that people will be prosecuted or arrested and it seems reasonable to think that could lead people to just deciding it isn't worth the time to report the crime.
leereeves 5y ago
> the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen? Because the same policy causes both. DA's refusing to prosecute encourages shoplifting and discourages reporting.