3 ms·

I’m saddened that - as a society - we can’t seem to get away from the idea that the answer to crime is to “be tough on crime.” This recall seems to be an expre

I’m saddened that - as a society - we can’t seem to get away from the idea that the answer to crime is to “be tough on crime.” This recall seems to be an expression of our basic urge to punish, rather than any real desire to address the problems that lie at the root of most crime. We’ve tried the “tough on crime” approach for so many years, and all it’s really done is inflate the prison population (with mostly non-white people, at that). Hopefully someday we can break the cycle and make real changes that will (in time) reduce crime by addressing the sources of the problem in the first place.

georgia_peach 4y ago
What is "the root of most crime"? What should society do with criminals instead?
- drewbug01 4y ago
  I suppose it's better to say "roots," plural. Nobody knows what lies at the roots of crime for _certain_, but there has been a lot of research into the topic. Several things seem to be strongly correlated with increased risk for criminal behavior, but we can't draw direct causality relationships quite yet. The Wikipedia article on it is informative, and viewpoint-neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_cr... One of the more interesting possible roots of criminal behavior is lead exposure as a child. It's not entirely clear, of course (socioeconomic status is a confounding factor that is hard to eliminate), but there seems to at least be some strong correlation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis My point isn't that we should be redirecting more resources to lead removal than to recalling a prosecutor (even though I _do_ think lead removal is a wise use of resources). My point is that deterrence and punishment is "cleaning up after the fact," rather than trying to address problems at their source. The question "what should society do with criminals" implies a belief that criminality _must_ exist in a society. Perhaps to some degree, it is true. But it seems as though redirecting our efforts to prevent criminality in the first place by addressing the underlying root causes would ultimately be a far better use of our resources, and far more effective.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    Yes, but what should society do with the criminals we already have? Even the most forgiving people can only stomach so much theft, vandalism, rape, murder, etc, before they snap.
reducesuffering 4y ago
There is actually a very real concept that known penalties deters crime. If you stop any significant punishment, criminals are aware, emboldened, and crime increases. Milwaukee is recently reeling in thousands of reckless car thefts, and this is what the perps say themselves: "I know people who have got 200 car thefts, 300 car thefts." Interviewer: "Have you thought about how you would do that time?" "Shit, you only get 3 weeks. It's a misdemeanor!" Interviewer: "You only do 3 weeks for stealing a car?" "Hell ya, it's a misdemeanor." https://youtu.be/fbTrLyqL_nw?t=429 https://youtu.be/fbTrLyqL_nw?t=429

georgia_peach 4y ago

What is "the root of most crime"? What should society do with criminals instead?

drewbug01 4y ago
I suppose it's better to say "roots," plural. Nobody knows what lies at the roots of crime for _certain_, but there has been a lot of research into the topic. Several things seem to be strongly correlated with increased risk for criminal behavior, but we can't draw direct causality relationships quite yet. The Wikipedia article on it is informative, and viewpoint-neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_cr... One of the more interesting possible roots of criminal behavior is lead exposure as a child. It's not entirely clear, of course (socioeconomic status is a confounding factor that is hard to eliminate), but there seems to at least be some strong correlation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis My point isn't that we should be redirecting more resources to lead removal than to recalling a prosecutor (even though I _do_ think lead removal is a wise use of resources). My point is that deterrence and punishment is "cleaning up after the fact," rather than trying to address problems at their source. The question "what should society do with criminals" implies a belief that criminality _must_ exist in a society. Perhaps to some degree, it is true. But it seems as though redirecting our efforts to prevent criminality in the first place by addressing the underlying root causes would ultimately be a far better use of our resources, and far more effective.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  Yes, but what should society do with the criminals we already have? Even the most forgiving people can only stomach so much theft, vandalism, rape, murder, etc, before they snap.

reducesuffering 4y ago

There is actually a very real concept that known penalties deters crime. If you stop any significant punishment, criminals are aware, emboldened, and crime increases. Milwaukee is recently reeling in thousands of reckless car thefts, and this is what the perps say themselves: "I know people who have got 200 car thefts, 300 car thefts." Interviewer: "Have you thought about how you would do that time?" "Shit, you only get 3 weeks. It's a misdemeanor!" Interviewer: "You only do 3 weeks for stealing a car?" "Hell ya, it's a misdemeanor." https://youtu.be/fbTrLyqL_nw?t=429 https://youtu.be/fbTrLyqL_nw?t=429