22 ms·

I work on this topic professionally and have been a paid consultant to the San Francisco District Attorney office under George Gascon and Chesa Boudin. I’m happ

I work on this topic professionally and have been a paid consultant to the San Francisco District Attorney office under George Gascon and Chesa Boudin. I’m happy to hear evidence that more foot patrols, increased clearance rates, and increased prosecution don’t decrease crime rates or the perception of public safety.

asveikau 4y ago
You're conflating a lot of things. I've seen a paper that suggests increasing a police force by X (I forget the number) reduces murder by 1 per year. That's probably the best thing I've seen supporting your views and it's pretty weak and impractical. I'd say this is probably correlation rather than causation. But the idea that increased prosecution prevents crime is absolute horse shit. Prosecution is too late to intervene. The crime has already occurred. When a crime rate increases, new people committing new crimes will grow faster than the system can punish people for old ones. The people committing property crime in SF (note that that's the actual issue, violent crime is low despite this freak incident) are not thinking rationally about the consequences or lack thereof either.
- shuckles 4y ago
  > Prosecution is too late to intervene. The crime has already occurred. Wrong. A small number of people commit most crimes. They have plenty of crimes to commit in the future if able. > The people committing property crime in SF (note that that's the actual issue, violent crime is low despite this freak incident) are not thinking rationally about the consequences or lack thereof either. Wrong at multiple levels. Violent crime rates are high for the demographics, among other things. Property crime like smash and grabs, home invasions, catalytic converter thefts are conducted by professional crime rings with sophisticated operations.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    > They have plenty of crimes to commit in the future if able. You're thinking of recidivism completely wrongly. > Violent crime rates are high for the demographics, among other things. This is false. The information is available to you.

asveikau 4y ago

You're conflating a lot of things. I've seen a paper that suggests increasing a police force by X (I forget the number) reduces murder by 1 per year. That's probably the best thing I've seen supporting your views and it's pretty weak and impractical. I'd say this is probably correlation rather than causation. But the idea that increased prosecution prevents crime is absolute horse shit. Prosecution is too late to intervene. The crime has already occurred. When a crime rate increases, new people committing new crimes will grow faster than the system can punish people for old ones. The people committing property crime in SF (note that that's the actual issue, violent crime is low despite this freak incident) are not thinking rationally about the consequences or lack thereof either.

shuckles 4y ago
> Prosecution is too late to intervene. The crime has already occurred. Wrong. A small number of people commit most crimes. They have plenty of crimes to commit in the future if able. > The people committing property crime in SF (note that that's the actual issue, violent crime is low despite this freak incident) are not thinking rationally about the consequences or lack thereof either. Wrong at multiple levels. Violent crime rates are high for the demographics, among other things. Property crime like smash and grabs, home invasions, catalytic converter thefts are conducted by professional crime rings with sophisticated operations.
- asveikau 4y ago
  > They have plenty of crimes to commit in the future if able. You're thinking of recidivism completely wrongly. > Violent crime rates are high for the demographics, among other things. This is false. The information is available to you.