3 ms·

> they analyzed the rules of the game and realized that the reward for a criminal career is better than the reward for a legitimate career, with few downsides.

by slg 4y ago

> they analyzed the rules of the game and realized that the reward for a criminal career is better than the reward for a legitimate career, with few downsides. I don't think you realize that you are agreeing with me. There are benefits to committing crime. There are benefits to not committing crime. There are downsides to committing crime. There are downsides to not committing crime. These all come together to help influence a person's decision. We can impact that decision by tweaking any one of these 4 results. Yes, increasing the penalties for crime is one way to address it, but we can have the same influence be decreasing the benefit of committing crime or increasing the benefit of not committing crime. I happen to think that is the morally superior choice because the result is fewer people in jail and the US already jails more people per capita than any other country.

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
How do you want to decrease the benefit of committing crime or increase the benefit of not committing crime? Without punishment, the benefit of stealing $1000 is roughly $1000. Again, I'm not talking about crimes of desperation, I'm talking about "I want $shiny_expensive_thing and stealing it/stealing for it is going to be an easier way to get that than working for it".
- slg 4y ago
  As you said: >Why work 20 days a month and make a modest living when you can steal and rob 3 days a month, fence on the 4th, and live in relative luxury? What if that modest living takes 10 days of work instead of 20. Do you think that will impact the number of people who turn to crime?
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
    1) Sure, an utopia of abundance where everyone has everything they want would solve most crime. It's not realistic though. 2) If the modest living takes 10 instead of 20 days, it will reduce the number of crimes, but not to a level where it would be ok to just ignore without enforcement. And once your 10 days (or many times 10 days) of honest work disappear in one criminal act, and you see that crimes pay and aren't punished, you'll also be tempted to go the easy way.
    - slg 4y ago
      I'm not talking about a utopia. I am talking about basic measures of inequality that is unique to this area. A family in San Francisco with two people earning minimum wage can't afford to rent a 2-bedroom apartment. They would each need to be working 70+ hour weeks for that to even be feasible. A city is broken if the people who work in the city can't afford to live there. That inequality is likely a bigger contributor to crime than whoever is elected DA. Very few people pay attention to local politics. I doubt most San Franciscans can name the DA, but everyone knows when they can't afford diapers. It also doesn't matter what the punishment is or isn't, most people aren't going to steal a bike off the street. Most people have morals. Most people don't want to view themselves as a bad person. Most people require some sort of personal justification before they steal something. Desperation is a strong justification. Societal unfairness is a strong justification. The lack of punishment can't be used justify the crime from a moral perspective so it won't impact the way most people behave. It will only impact the people at the margins who were already open to committing crime.

by slg 4y ago

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago

How do you want to decrease the benefit of committing crime or increase the benefit of not committing crime? Without punishment, the benefit of stealing $1000 is roughly $1000. Again, I'm not talking about crimes of desperation, I'm talking about "I want $shiny_expensive_thing and stealing it/stealing for it is going to be an easier way to get that than working for it".

slg 4y ago
As you said: >Why work 20 days a month and make a modest living when you can steal and rob 3 days a month, fence on the 4th, and live in relative luxury? What if that modest living takes 10 days of work instead of 20. Do you think that will impact the number of people who turn to crime?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  1) Sure, an utopia of abundance where everyone has everything they want would solve most crime. It's not realistic though. 2) If the modest living takes 10 instead of 20 days, it will reduce the number of crimes, but not to a level where it would be ok to just ignore without enforcement. And once your 10 days (or many times 10 days) of honest work disappear in one criminal act, and you see that crimes pay and aren't punished, you'll also be tempted to go the easy way.
  - slg 4y ago
    I'm not talking about a utopia. I am talking about basic measures of inequality that is unique to this area. A family in San Francisco with two people earning minimum wage can't afford to rent a 2-bedroom apartment. They would each need to be working 70+ hour weeks for that to even be feasible. A city is broken if the people who work in the city can't afford to live there. That inequality is likely a bigger contributor to crime than whoever is elected DA. Very few people pay attention to local politics. I doubt most San Franciscans can name the DA, but everyone knows when they can't afford diapers. It also doesn't matter what the punishment is or isn't, most people aren't going to steal a bike off the street. Most people have morals. Most people don't want to view themselves as a bad person. Most people require some sort of personal justification before they steal something. Desperation is a strong justification. Societal unfairness is a strong justification. The lack of punishment can't be used justify the crime from a moral perspective so it won't impact the way most people behave. It will only impact the people at the margins who were already open to committing crime.