4 ms·

Yes because the police stop arresting people for it. If you don't prosecute, it effectively stops being illegal.

bombcar 2y ago
Most of the time. Certain crimes (eg public intoxication) often have an arrest followed by letting the person go when they’ve sobered up, so no official prosecution but not no arrest.
- pstrateman 2y ago
  Public intoxication would seem to be the only example of that though. Can you think of any other?
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Littering, poaching
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    Protestors (whatever those charges are). Disobeying a police officer. Lots of things. The DA's resources are limited (unless all the Republican critics want to pay more taxes!). Arrest is enough of a deterrent for minor crimes.
    - watwut 2y ago
      Yeah, but protestors are frequently arrested and charged with completely made up charges. It is just a tactic how to discouraged protests. The cops doing arrests know about it, prosecutors know about it, defense layers knows about it and protesters know about it. It has nothing to do with deterring crimes or crime rates, it is just politics.
  - outop 2y ago
    Loitering, prostitution, vagrancy.
beepbooptheory 2y ago
If true, maybe. But this very point makes this whole line of argumentation unfalsifiable and in that a little limp...
- pstrateman 2y ago
  Of course it's falsifiable, start prosecuting again and see if the arrest rate goes up.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    But the point is that would not tell us anything about the relative frequency of the crime when it's not prosecuted! You are saying, effectively, that we know that smoke always comes from fire simply because when you light a fire, you see smoke. You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted. That makes a lot of bad assumptions about the nature of crime itself that I don't think a single criminologist would follow you on.
    - wernercd 2y ago
      > You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted. Why couldn't you? Defund the police = less prosecutions, less policing = more criminals... Why wouldn't someone argue easily proven points that more police = more safety (Yes, some corruption does exist but it's not like that corruption goes away when the police do.) https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when... "...from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault."
      - beepbooptheory 2y ago
        > less policing = more criminals... I don't see why this necessarily follows. Unless, e.g., the only reason you are not killing your neighbor is because your pretty sure you will be prosecuted for it. To view the whole world as just itching to commit crimes as soon as they can get away with it is just already buying into the presuppositions of policing the original gp was interrogating. Like its fine I guess if you want to have this pseudo-Hobbesian outlook to it all, but you can't pretend its something logical/rational. Because it simply isn't!
wolverine876 2y ago
Do you have evidence of that?
- zarathustreal 2y ago
  ..my friend, what world do you live in where civilians are gathering their own evidence, of any kind, much less evidence related to police behaviors?
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    You don't need to gather your own. Researchers and journalists do it, and you can find them pretty easily ...

Most of the time. Certain crimes (eg public intoxication) often have an arrest followed by letting the person go when they’ve sobered up, so no official prosecution but not no arrest.

pstrateman 2y ago
Public intoxication would seem to be the only example of that though. Can you think of any other?
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Littering, poaching
- wolverine876 2y ago
  Protestors (whatever those charges are). Disobeying a police officer. Lots of things. The DA's resources are limited (unless all the Republican critics want to pay more taxes!). Arrest is enough of a deterrent for minor crimes.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Yeah, but protestors are frequently arrested and charged with completely made up charges. It is just a tactic how to discouraged protests. The cops doing arrests know about it, prosecutors know about it, defense layers knows about it and protesters know about it. It has nothing to do with deterring crimes or crime rates, it is just politics.
- outop 2y ago
  Loitering, prostitution, vagrancy.

beepbooptheory 2y ago

If true, maybe. But this very point makes this whole line of argumentation unfalsifiable and in that a little limp...

pstrateman 2y ago
Of course it's falsifiable, start prosecuting again and see if the arrest rate goes up.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  But the point is that would not tell us anything about the relative frequency of the crime when it's not prosecuted! You are saying, effectively, that we know that smoke always comes from fire simply because when you light a fire, you see smoke. You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted. That makes a lot of bad assumptions about the nature of crime itself that I don't think a single criminologist would follow you on.
  - wernercd 2y ago
    > You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted. Why couldn't you? Defund the police = less prosecutions, less policing = more criminals... Why wouldn't someone argue easily proven points that more police = more safety (Yes, some corruption does exist but it's not like that corruption goes away when the police do.) https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when... "...from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault."
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
      > less policing = more criminals... I don't see why this necessarily follows. Unless, e.g., the only reason you are not killing your neighbor is because your pretty sure you will be prosecuted for it. To view the whole world as just itching to commit crimes as soon as they can get away with it is just already buying into the presuppositions of policing the original gp was interrogating. Like its fine I guess if you want to have this pseudo-Hobbesian outlook to it all, but you can't pretend its something logical/rational. Because it simply isn't!

wolverine876 2y ago

Do you have evidence of that?

zarathustreal 2y ago
..my friend, what world do you live in where civilians are gathering their own evidence, of any kind, much less evidence related to police behaviors?
- wolverine876 2y ago
  You don't need to gather your own. Researchers and journalists do it, and you can find them pretty easily ...