3 ms·
We have been, obviously. That's why we have the largest prison population in the world (and we have to pay for it). It just doesn't work. So if you actually car
by standardUser 4y ago
We have been, obviously. That's why we have the largest prison population in the world (and we have to pay for it). It just doesn't work. So if you actually care about reducing crime, and not just getting petty revenge, shouldn't we try something different finally?
- lmm 4y agoAnd yet the bump in property crime is coincident with noticeable recent slackening off, especially on property crime. I'm all for exploring what works, but not prosecuting shoplifters goes in the failed experiment bucket at this point IMO.
- uejfiweun 4y ago> It just doesn't work. Raises hand: uh, I think harshly punishing crimes works just fine. Things were pretty safe while I was growing up, in fact it was even getting safer every year. It really wasn't until we actually did "try something different" with these DAs who don't believe in prosecution and the defund movements that crime actually started to go up again.
- standardUser 4y agoThings are safe now, from my perspective. And from a statistical perspective, crime today is dramatically lower than the 70s and 80s. When did you grow up?
- vinyl7 4y agoWhy not both instead of relying on one? Fix the broken economy, and punish people. That should reduce crime, lower the prison population, while still punishing those who actually deserve it. Unfortunately economy is boring and the media/congress would rather talk about stupid side issues that effect no one.