3 ms·
> A lot of city residents need to come to terms with the fact that some of these progressive criminal justice reforms may need to be adjusted a bit, given that
by munificent 3y ago
> A lot of city residents need to come to terms with the fact that some of these progressive criminal justice reforms may need to be adjusted a bit, given that we now have years of evidence of their effects.
Or we need progressive economic reforms to go with them.
You can avoid property crime two ways:
1. Massive police power that brutally punishes anyone who does it so that the incentives are always against it.
2. Create an economic environment where acquiring sufficient resources through legitimate means is easier and more rewarding than through crime.
For the past 50 years, the US has gotten worse and worse at #2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...). We could turn the country into a police state and go all in on #1.
But a much better world to live in is one where we focus on fixing #2.
- HPsquared 3y agoA bit of #1 helps with #2. You just need enough to nudge the cost/ benefit so crime isn't perceived to pay (or if it does pay, that it isn't perceived to be worth the risk).
- jakelazaroff 3y agoThe goal of "crime wave" rhetoric is #1. You can tell because the people pushing it ignore far costlier crimes such as wage theft that tend to be committed by people whom they don't want to punish. Heck, for the past decade or so, police themselves have stolen at least as much via civil asset forfeiture than has been taken in burglaries [1]. Yet the "law and order" solution is to hand them more power. [1] https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-billion-in-the-past-20-years-from-american-citizens-without-due-process.html https://boingboing.net/2020/12/21/us-police-have-stolen-68-b...