13 ms·

Do you need a study that being lax on crime will incentivize more crime? It's a well known effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https:/

Do you need a study that being lax on crime will incentivize more crime? It's a well known effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory Continue to vote for policies that make your city a hell hole. I don't really care anymore, I don't live there.

juve1996 4y ago
The "criticism" section is on that article and has many objections. It is not accepted fact. > It has also been argued that rates of major crimes also dropped in many other US cities during the 1990s, both those that had adopted broken windows policing and those that had not.[41] In the winter 2006 edition of the University of Chicago Law Review, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig looked at the later Department of Housing and Urban Development program that rehoused inner-city project tenants in New York into more-orderly neighborhoods.[25] The broken windows theory would suggest that these tenants would commit less crime once moved because of the more stable conditions on the streets. However, Harcourt and Ludwig found that the tenants continued to commit crime at the same rate. Still waiting on real evidence of causation.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  Alright, people are all good, incentives don't exist, and there's no reason to enforce laws. Have fun on the streets in your shithole city! Just remember it's made possible by voters like you! Remember to step over the shit and broken glass, but don't worry the next person won't dare to shit in the same spot! I don't really care if you believe broken window theory, I don't live around your policies.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - hunterb123 4y ago
  - slater 4y ago
    "When the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      Did I slander him? I criticized the policies he votes for and his thought process. I did not slander him as a person, I criticized his way of thinking. I did insult his hypothetical city, but we're discussing the cause as to why cities are shitholes, it's not slander when it's true. He wants proof that being lax on crime perpetuates crime, yet ignores decades of basic criminology due to a wikipedia criticism section with no substance. Words have specific definitions, not what you want to stretch them to to make your snarky point.

juve1996 4y ago

The "criticism" section is on that article and has many objections. It is not accepted fact. > It has also been argued that rates of major crimes also dropped in many other US cities during the 1990s, both those that had adopted broken windows policing and those that had not.[41] In the winter 2006 edition of the University of Chicago Law Review, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig looked at the later Department of Housing and Urban Development program that rehoused inner-city project tenants in New York into more-orderly neighborhoods.[25] The broken windows theory would suggest that these tenants would commit less crime once moved because of the more stable conditions on the streets. However, Harcourt and Ludwig found that the tenants continued to commit crime at the same rate. Still waiting on real evidence of causation.

hunterb123 4y ago
Alright, people are all good, incentives don't exist, and there's no reason to enforce laws. Have fun on the streets in your shithole city! Just remember it's made possible by voters like you! Remember to step over the shit and broken glass, but don't worry the next person won't dare to shit in the same spot! I don't really care if you believe broken window theory, I don't live around your policies.
- juve1996 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - hunterb123 4y ago
- slater 4y ago
  "When the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    Did I slander him? I criticized the policies he votes for and his thought process. I did not slander him as a person, I criticized his way of thinking. I did insult his hypothetical city, but we're discussing the cause as to why cities are shitholes, it's not slander when it's true. He wants proof that being lax on crime perpetuates crime, yet ignores decades of basic criminology due to a wikipedia criticism section with no substance. Words have specific definitions, not what you want to stretch them to to make your snarky point.