4 ms·

Ah yes, the classic "all criminals are just misunderstood and will stop committing crime if you give them money" argument.

by bakugo 4y ago

slg 4y ago
What is the counterargument? "All criminals are just evil people and will never stop committing crime unless they are thrown in jail"? The original line of argument was that crime went up because punishments went don't. This implicitly is built on the belief that criminals are rational actors responding to a changing incentive structure. We can therefore reduce crime by changing the incentives again so that crime is a less attractive option. There is no reason why that change needs to be the reintroduction of harsh punishments. We can also change incentives by reducing the positive benefit of crime by making sure people's basic needs are satisfied.
- bakugo 4y ago
  You assume people need external incentives to commit crime, which is completely wrong. People need external incentives to NOT commit crime, because most crimes already include inherent incentives. For example, stealing comes with the inherent reward of gaining whatever it is you stole. You don't need to be homeless and starving to want more money or physical goods. I am living a comfortable life, all of my basic needs are satisfied, and I have never stolen anything. But if I could just walk into a store, grab things and walk out with the knowledge that I was not going to be punished for it in any way, I absolutely would. Why wouldn't I? Because it's "wrong"? I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way. If I didn't, someone else would.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > People need external incentives to NOT commit crime, because most crimes already include inherent incentives. That's a pretty cynical view of human nature that I don't share. > But if I could just walk into a store, grab things and walk out with the knowledge that I was not going to be punished for it in any way, I absolutely would. I absolutely wouldn't. I mean, zero-consequence thefts seem to be a true state of affairs for many places like pharmacies in SF, and yet I don't feel any desire to walk into a Walgreens and start walking out with stuff without paying. Sure, I'm pretty comfortable financially, and that's a factor. But I would have to be pretty hard-up financially, like "I'm going to be out on the streets if I don't steal" levels of hard-up, to consider stealing at all, let alone habitually (and I'd still feel guilty about it). And I frankly can't blame people in that position; in many cases society has failed them, so I can't fault them for ignoring society's rules. > Why wouldn't I? Because it's "wrong"? Yes! Laws only work because people agree that they're a good idea in general, even if we may not agree with every individual law. I agree with laws around theft because I think it's shitty to deprive someone else of something that's theirs. Maybe it's a little muddier in the "personalization" aspect when we're talking about goods for sale owned by a huge corporation, but massive, ongoing, consequence-free theft from a particular store means that store is eventually going to shut down, and deprive regular people from jobs and their livelihoods. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. > I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way. If I didn't, someone else would. Ah, yes, the "if I'm not an asshole, someone else will be, so I might as well just be an asshole and reap undeserved rewards" anti-morality play. That's reprehensible; I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your approach to being a human.
    - bakugo 4y ago
      >And I frankly can't blame people in that position; in many cases society has failed them, so I can't fault them for ignoring society's rules. You remind me of the dude who made that one bike comic. If someone stole something you own, you'd be happy because "society failed them"? I assume you've never actually been victim of or even witnessed any kind of crime, because you'd probably change your mind if you did. >Laws only work because people agree that they're a good idea in general No, laws are created because most people think they're a good idea, they work because they are enforced. A law that is not enforced is a law that effectively does not exist. >Ah, yes, the "if I'm not an asshole, someone else will be, so I might as well just be an asshole and reap undeserved rewards" anti-morality play. That's reprehensible; I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your approach to being a human. The only reason you don't agree with this is because you're not surrounded by other people reaping undeserved rewards. It's very easy to say "I would never do that!" in an environment where nobody else does it. Have you ever heard of "looting"? Because that's literally what I described in action. If people know for a fact they can get away from stealing from a store, there will be no shortage of people willing to do it. If you'd stand there and watch while everyone else gets their free stuff, knowing the store will be cleaned out by the end of the day regardless, good for you, but your own morality does not change the facts.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > And I frankly can't blame people in that position; in many cases society has failed them, so I can't fault them for ignoring society's rules. Society doesn’t owe you anything; you owe society.
      - random314 4y ago
        How is this asymmetry justified? By how pithy and strong the statement sounds?
  - slg 4y ago
    >You assume people need external incentives to commit crime, which is completely wrong. People need external incentives to NOT commit crime, These are the same thing. There is one decision, either commit crime or don't. There are positive and negative incentives on each side. >For example, stealing comes with the inherent reward of gaining whatever it is you stole. You don't need to be homeless and starving to want more money or physical goods. Sure, but if you are homeless and starting your motivation to steal go up because that money represents a greater marginal improvement to your life. Would you disagree with that? >But if I could just walk into a store, grab things and walk out with the knowledge that I was not going to be punished for it in any way, I absolutely would. Why wouldn't I? Because it's "wrong"? I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way. If I didn't, someone else would. It is always funny to me when someone admits they have no morals and think that means no one else has morals. There have been studies that show most people don't operate this way. For example, a majority of people will try to return a lost wallet and that percentage goes up when the amount of cash in the wallet increases[1]. How do you explain that? [1] - https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-000-wallets-around-the-globe-can-teach-us-about-honesty https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-00...
    - bakugo 4y ago
      >Sure, but if you are homeless and starting your motivation to steal go up because that money represents a greater marginal improvement to your life. Would you disagree with that? No. I never claimed that nobody has ever committed a crime due to being poor or homeless. All I'm saying is that the claim that solving homelessness and poverty would also solve crime is objectively wrong.
      - slg 4y ago
        No one said this is a solution to "solve crime" just like throwing all criminals in jail doesn't "solve crime". There will always be murderers, rapists, and just generally evil and deranged people. The goal isn't for San Francisco to have zero crime. That is impossible. The goal is to reduce crime. Reducing homeless and poverty would lead to a reduction in crime. Do you agree with that?
    - 4y ago
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I agree. Let ICE round up the (mainly Honduran) migrants dealing drugs to pay off the cartel for their transit into the country. Note: that doesn’t mean cooperating with ICE on raids on the rest/majority of the migrants who are actively contributing positively to the city. The current policy is to simply hand these people “no go” orders, which are essentially a polite request to not go back to Civic Center/the Tenderloin. It’s an absolute joke and it is typical black and white American policy making that’s causing this situation to be far worse than it needs to be.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Some criminals just need opportunity and support to see the light. Some are just horrible people who can't realistically be saved and should just be thrown in jail forever. Most are somewhere between the two. I think what we need to do is to reintroduce short-term but painful punishments (a day in the stocks, public caning, etc) for moderately severe offenses. Some people need more than just a slap on the wrist to change, but don't deserve to have their life ruined forever by a 30-year jail sentence. Physical pain and public shaming have worked well for millions of years (literally) they still work today in many countries, and they are far more compassionate than a long jail sentence. Humans are just another animal species, sometimes animal incentives are what we need.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    That's a good idea. At least give convicted criminals the option. Will save taxpayers a lot too. This could apply to non-violent offences where the person doesn't need to be confined to protect other people from high probability reoffense.
kelnos 4y ago
I don't think that's what the person you're replying to said, but yes, that is true in some cases, especially when crimes are perpetrated out of need, drug addiction, or because of feeling disenfranchised and excluded from society. That's certainly not everyone, but I suspect if we were to deal with the subset that is "misunderstood" in a more productive way, SF crime would be a lot more tractable.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
Ugh. No, that's just another strawman. The argument, which is supported by research, is that actually helping people to reintegrate into society, helping them find homes, get jobs, and get mental health treatment stops them committing crimes. That's because putting people in a place of stability reduces the need to commit crime.

Ah yes, the classic "all criminals are just misunderstood and will stop committing crime if you give them money" argument.

by bakugo 4y ago

Ah yes, the classic "all criminals are just misunderstood and will stop committing crime if you give them money" argument.

slg 4y ago

What is the counterargument? "All criminals are just evil people and will never stop committing crime unless they are thrown in jail"? The original line of argument was that crime went up because punishments went don't. This implicitly is built on the belief that criminals are rational actors responding to a changing incentive structure. We can therefore reduce crime by changing the incentives again so that crime is a less attractive option. There is no reason why that change needs to be the reintroduction of harsh punishments. We can also change incentives by reducing the positive benefit of crime by making sure people's basic needs are satisfied.

bakugo 4y ago
You assume people need external incentives to commit crime, which is completely wrong. People need external incentives to NOT commit crime, because most crimes already include inherent incentives. For example, stealing comes with the inherent reward of gaining whatever it is you stole. You don't need to be homeless and starving to want more money or physical goods. I am living a comfortable life, all of my basic needs are satisfied, and I have never stolen anything. But if I could just walk into a store, grab things and walk out with the knowledge that I was not going to be punished for it in any way, I absolutely would. Why wouldn't I? Because it's "wrong"? I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way. If I didn't, someone else would.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > People need external incentives to NOT commit crime, because most crimes already include inherent incentives. That's a pretty cynical view of human nature that I don't share. > But if I could just walk into a store, grab things and walk out with the knowledge that I was not going to be punished for it in any way, I absolutely would. I absolutely wouldn't. I mean, zero-consequence thefts seem to be a true state of affairs for many places like pharmacies in SF, and yet I don't feel any desire to walk into a Walgreens and start walking out with stuff without paying. Sure, I'm pretty comfortable financially, and that's a factor. But I would have to be pretty hard-up financially, like "I'm going to be out on the streets if I don't steal" levels of hard-up, to consider stealing at all, let alone habitually (and I'd still feel guilty about it). And I frankly can't blame people in that position; in many cases society has failed them, so I can't fault them for ignoring society's rules. > Why wouldn't I? Because it's "wrong"? Yes! Laws only work because people agree that they're a good idea in general, even if we may not agree with every individual law. I agree with laws around theft because I think it's shitty to deprive someone else of something that's theirs. Maybe it's a little muddier in the "personalization" aspect when we're talking about goods for sale owned by a huge corporation, but massive, ongoing, consequence-free theft from a particular store means that store is eventually going to shut down, and deprive regular people from jobs and their livelihoods. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. > I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way. If I didn't, someone else would. Ah, yes, the "if I'm not an asshole, someone else will be, so I might as well just be an asshole and reap undeserved rewards" anti-morality play. That's reprehensible; I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your approach to being a human.
  - bakugo 4y ago
    >And I frankly can't blame people in that position; in many cases society has failed them, so I can't fault them for ignoring society's rules. You remind me of the dude who made that one bike comic. If someone stole something you own, you'd be happy because "society failed them"? I assume you've never actually been victim of or even witnessed any kind of crime, because you'd probably change your mind if you did. >Laws only work because people agree that they're a good idea in general No, laws are created because most people think they're a good idea, they work because they are enforced. A law that is not enforced is a law that effectively does not exist. >Ah, yes, the "if I'm not an asshole, someone else will be, so I might as well just be an asshole and reap undeserved rewards" anti-morality play. That's reprehensible; I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your approach to being a human. The only reason you don't agree with this is because you're not surrounded by other people reaping undeserved rewards. It's very easy to say "I would never do that!" in an environment where nobody else does it. Have you ever heard of "looting"? Because that's literally what I described in action. If people know for a fact they can get away from stealing from a store, there will be no shortage of people willing to do it. If you'd stand there and watch while everyone else gets their free stuff, knowing the store will be cleaned out by the end of the day regardless, good for you, but your own morality does not change the facts.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > And I frankly can't blame people in that position; in many cases society has failed them, so I can't fault them for ignoring society's rules. Society doesn’t owe you anything; you owe society.
    - random314 4y ago
      How is this asymmetry justified? By how pithy and strong the statement sounds?
- slg 4y ago
  >You assume people need external incentives to commit crime, which is completely wrong. People need external incentives to NOT commit crime, These are the same thing. There is one decision, either commit crime or don't. There are positive and negative incentives on each side. >For example, stealing comes with the inherent reward of gaining whatever it is you stole. You don't need to be homeless and starving to want more money or physical goods. Sure, but if you are homeless and starting your motivation to steal go up because that money represents a greater marginal improvement to your life. Would you disagree with that? >But if I could just walk into a store, grab things and walk out with the knowledge that I was not going to be punished for it in any way, I absolutely would. Why wouldn't I? Because it's "wrong"? I'm sorry but the world doesn't work that way. If I didn't, someone else would. It is always funny to me when someone admits they have no morals and think that means no one else has morals. There have been studies that show most people don't operate this way. For example, a majority of people will try to return a lost wallet and that percentage goes up when the amount of cash in the wallet increases[1]. How do you explain that? [1] - https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-000-wallets-around-the-globe-can-teach-us-about-honesty https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734141432/what-dropping-17-00...
  - bakugo 4y ago
    >Sure, but if you are homeless and starting your motivation to steal go up because that money represents a greater marginal improvement to your life. Would you disagree with that? No. I never claimed that nobody has ever committed a crime due to being poor or homeless. All I'm saying is that the claim that solving homelessness and poverty would also solve crime is objectively wrong.
    - slg 4y ago
      No one said this is a solution to "solve crime" just like throwing all criminals in jail doesn't "solve crime". There will always be murderers, rapists, and just generally evil and deranged people. The goal isn't for San Francisco to have zero crime. That is impossible. The goal is to reduce crime. Reducing homeless and poverty would lead to a reduction in crime. Do you agree with that?
  - 4y ago
atdrummond 4y ago
I agree. Let ICE round up the (mainly Honduran) migrants dealing drugs to pay off the cartel for their transit into the country. Note: that doesn’t mean cooperating with ICE on raids on the rest/majority of the migrants who are actively contributing positively to the city. The current policy is to simply hand these people “no go” orders, which are essentially a polite request to not go back to Civic Center/the Tenderloin. It’s an absolute joke and it is typical black and white American policy making that’s causing this situation to be far worse than it needs to be.
Georgelemental 4y ago
Some criminals just need opportunity and support to see the light. Some are just horrible people who can't realistically be saved and should just be thrown in jail forever. Most are somewhere between the two. I think what we need to do is to reintroduce short-term but painful punishments (a day in the stocks, public caning, etc) for moderately severe offenses. Some people need more than just a slap on the wrist to change, but don't deserve to have their life ruined forever by a 30-year jail sentence. Physical pain and public shaming have worked well for millions of years (literally) they still work today in many countries, and they are far more compassionate than a long jail sentence. Humans are just another animal species, sometimes animal incentives are what we need.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  That's a good idea. At least give convicted criminals the option. Will save taxpayers a lot too. This could apply to non-violent offences where the person doesn't need to be confined to protect other people from high probability reoffense.

kelnos 4y ago

I don't think that's what the person you're replying to said, but yes, that is true in some cases, especially when crimes are perpetrated out of need, drug addiction, or because of feeling disenfranchised and excluded from society. That's certainly not everyone, but I suspect if we were to deal with the subset that is "misunderstood" in a more productive way, SF crime would be a lot more tractable.

actually_a_dog 4y ago

Ugh. No, that's just another strawman. The argument, which is supported by research, is that actually helping people to reintegrate into society, helping them find homes, get jobs, and get mental health treatment stops them committing crimes. That's because putting people in a place of stability reduces the need to commit crime.