4 ms·

It also has to do with “deserving” death, or injustice. Someone who is obese dies of a chronic illness, or a smoker, etc. doesn’t register as news, or even the

It also has to do with “deserving” death, or injustice. Someone who is obese dies of a chronic illness, or a smoker, etc. doesn’t register as news, or even the cause themselves, because the vast majority of obese people and smokers know themselves that their lifestyles lead to illness and early death. But dying from a criminal act? It’s undeserved and arguably more easily preventable than grand lifestyle changes across the whole population. If a felon with 50+ arrests murders someone, a “quick” adjustment in laws could prevent it in the future

atonse 1y ago
I wonder gang related violence gets more coverage only if it results in innocent victims. Deserved vs undeserved. Probably does.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  Gang violence among gang members is a life style choice. For children involved in gang violence it’s much more problematic. An adult who freely chooses to make their living on the street is a bit less unnerving as the lifestyle can lead there. When an innocent person is shot during gang violence, it is much more newsworthy. I would also like to stop gang violence but this often means “throwing the book” at gang members, which is often disliked by many activists. I myself live in a safe area of a major city, and there are gang murders in my neighborhood occasionally. It makes my relatives and friends ask how I can live here. But a grown man shot in his car at 3am over a drug deal doesn’t make me feel that less unsafe, and I have kids here
  - giantg2 1y ago
    "Gang violence among gang members is a life style choice. For children involved in gang violence it’s much more problematic." Gang membership is skewed younger and often includes "children" (depends on definition) 14+. Makes it a little tricky about lifestyle choice when dealing with minors.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    This sounds great until you’re minding your own business in your house while these people engage in gun battles out in the street and you or your kids catch one of the strays. If you google this you will find plenty of examples that made the news, and not all of them do. https://abc13.com/post/houston-police-increasing-patrols-7-year-old-hit-stray-bullet-apartment-northborough-rushcreek-greenspoint/16120389/ https://abc13.com/post/houston-police-increasing-patrols-7-y... Here is an article including two such examples. One kid was sitting down eating dinner and the other was sitting in a car. They were both shot totally incidentally during shootouts they had nothing to do with.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      It is theoretically possible but in the 20+ years I’ve lived here there has never been an innocent bystander killed, and maybe 5 murders I can remember. I live in a wealthy enclave of a major city. I’m just a city guy, I’m not concerned
      - vaidhy 1y ago
        As in, you witnessed 5 murders or 5 people you know got killed/happened near you etc? If so, I do not know how to tell you that this sounds insane..
    - dmoy 1y ago
      That doesn't move mortality numbers much though. It's something like 50 deaths per year from stray bullets, vs 20,000+ homicides, vs 40,000 ish fatal car accident deaths. That homicides make the news much more than car accidents, and stray bullets make the news at all, is kinda the point of the article.
    - Broken_Hippo 1y ago
      People are injured by celebratory fire all the time. That said, getting hit by a stray bullet of any sort is very very rare, which is the reason the stories stick in your head. Children get killed and injured (or injure others) by playing with unsecured guns as well. The fact is that if there are guns around, there is a little bit of danger especially if they are loaded. Stricter gun laws tend to produce less gun violence and accidents.
  - akerl_ 1y ago
    The problem with "throwing the book" at gang members is that it doesn't work. Nobody joining a gang is making a rational reckoning of the risk/reward of getting caught by the police, partly because they don't plan to get caught and partly because the much larger risk is getting killed. And the people getting arrested and prosecuted are primarily not the people calling the shots or driving recruitment of new members. The best way to put a dent in gang violence is to disrupt gang recruiting, and one of the better ways to do that is to improve societal safety nets so joining a gang is less attractive.
    - chermi 1y ago
      Citation needed. Sure, throwing the book doesn't get you 100%. But am I supposed to believe that increasing the penalty for doing the wrong thing doesn't decrease the frequency of the wrong thing? Having everyone you know in your crime circle being in jail vs. roaming free certainly has an effect on your decisions to join/stay.
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        > But am I supposed to believe that increasing the penalty for doing the wrong thing doesn't decrease the frequency of the wrong thing? Yes. There is substantial evidence that increasing the severity of punishment does not reduce crime rates.
        akerl_ 1y ago
        It turns out that when your big worries are "not being able to afford rent and food" and then "getting shot", the difference between 5 years and 20 years in jail, or the difference between a 10% likelihood or 50% likelihood that you get caught don't really factor into the decision-making process.
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Surely, 3 strikes type laws that lock people away for longer who exhibit violent tendencies reduces crime experienced in society.
Barrin92 1y ago
>It’s undeserved and arguably more easily preventable is it though? Crime has been with us since the dawn of civilization. It's easier to tell a story in which crime is personalized and framed as preventable but in reality there's always new modes of crime, new criminals, always the incentive for people to steal when they can, and so on. When societies manage to "stomp out" crime they're no less brutal than when they attempt to stop a pandemic. I think what a society frames as aberrant is just a reflection of the kind of public morality they endorse. A society of pirates probably thinks scorbut is more undeserved than being punished for theft.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  > When societies manage to "stomp out" crime they're no less brutal than when they attempt to stop a pandemic. I don't think this is necessarily true. Because when trying to stamp out a pandemic, everybody was negatively affected. When trying to stamp out crime, it's overwhelmingly suspected criminals that are affected. Not long ago El-Salvador had literally the highest homicide rate in the world and was just a domestic war-zone. It's now rated as the 8th safest country in the world [1]. What did they do? Dramatically bump up the penalties for gang membership, round up gang members, and throw them into militarized prisons. Their President now has a 90%+ approval rating, and is one of the most well regarded leaders in the world. Obviously there's a 'First they came for the Communists, And I did not speak out, Because I was not a Communist...' type concern here. But in this case, it seems that first they came for the criminals, crime plummeted, and everybody lived happily ever after. And again there are also completely reasonable human rights concerns, but the thing I think people often disregard in this calculus is the human rights of the literally 99% of people who were previously being terrorized, killed, robbed, and so on by the 1% of people. They have obviously rounded up some people who are innocent and they are making efforts to resolve that, and I hope those who are truly innocent receive fair compensation for the distress. But if one views human rights as a net (gains, versus losses), then El Salvador is vastly more humane than it was in the past. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/650516/global-safety-starts-slip.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/650516/global-safety-starts-sli...
  - tastyface 1y ago

atonse 1y ago

I wonder gang related violence gets more coverage only if it results in innocent victims. Deserved vs undeserved. Probably does.

monero-xmr 1y ago
Gang violence among gang members is a life style choice. For children involved in gang violence it’s much more problematic. An adult who freely chooses to make their living on the street is a bit less unnerving as the lifestyle can lead there. When an innocent person is shot during gang violence, it is much more newsworthy. I would also like to stop gang violence but this often means “throwing the book” at gang members, which is often disliked by many activists. I myself live in a safe area of a major city, and there are gang murders in my neighborhood occasionally. It makes my relatives and friends ask how I can live here. But a grown man shot in his car at 3am over a drug deal doesn’t make me feel that less unsafe, and I have kids here
- giantg2 1y ago
  "Gang violence among gang members is a life style choice. For children involved in gang violence it’s much more problematic." Gang membership is skewed younger and often includes "children" (depends on definition) 14+. Makes it a little tricky about lifestyle choice when dealing with minors.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  This sounds great until you’re minding your own business in your house while these people engage in gun battles out in the street and you or your kids catch one of the strays. If you google this you will find plenty of examples that made the news, and not all of them do. https://abc13.com/post/houston-police-increasing-patrols-7-year-old-hit-stray-bullet-apartment-northborough-rushcreek-greenspoint/16120389/ https://abc13.com/post/houston-police-increasing-patrols-7-y... Here is an article including two such examples. One kid was sitting down eating dinner and the other was sitting in a car. They were both shot totally incidentally during shootouts they had nothing to do with.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    It is theoretically possible but in the 20+ years I’ve lived here there has never been an innocent bystander killed, and maybe 5 murders I can remember. I live in a wealthy enclave of a major city. I’m just a city guy, I’m not concerned
    - vaidhy 1y ago
      As in, you witnessed 5 murders or 5 people you know got killed/happened near you etc? If so, I do not know how to tell you that this sounds insane..
  - dmoy 1y ago
    That doesn't move mortality numbers much though. It's something like 50 deaths per year from stray bullets, vs 20,000+ homicides, vs 40,000 ish fatal car accident deaths. That homicides make the news much more than car accidents, and stray bullets make the news at all, is kinda the point of the article.
  - Broken_Hippo 1y ago
    People are injured by celebratory fire all the time. That said, getting hit by a stray bullet of any sort is very very rare, which is the reason the stories stick in your head. Children get killed and injured (or injure others) by playing with unsecured guns as well. The fact is that if there are guns around, there is a little bit of danger especially if they are loaded. Stricter gun laws tend to produce less gun violence and accidents.
- akerl_ 1y ago
  The problem with "throwing the book" at gang members is that it doesn't work. Nobody joining a gang is making a rational reckoning of the risk/reward of getting caught by the police, partly because they don't plan to get caught and partly because the much larger risk is getting killed. And the people getting arrested and prosecuted are primarily not the people calling the shots or driving recruitment of new members. The best way to put a dent in gang violence is to disrupt gang recruiting, and one of the better ways to do that is to improve societal safety nets so joining a gang is less attractive.
  - chermi 1y ago
    Citation needed. Sure, throwing the book doesn't get you 100%. But am I supposed to believe that increasing the penalty for doing the wrong thing doesn't decrease the frequency of the wrong thing? Having everyone you know in your crime circle being in jail vs. roaming free certainly has an effect on your decisions to join/stay.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      > But am I supposed to believe that increasing the penalty for doing the wrong thing doesn't decrease the frequency of the wrong thing? Yes. There is substantial evidence that increasing the severity of punishment does not reduce crime rates.
      - akerl_ 1y ago
        It turns out that when your big worries are "not being able to afford rent and food" and then "getting shot", the difference between 5 years and 20 years in jail, or the difference between a 10% likelihood or 50% likelihood that you get caught don't really factor into the decision-making process.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Surely, 3 strikes type laws that lock people away for longer who exhibit violent tendencies reduces crime experienced in society.

Barrin92 1y ago

>It’s undeserved and arguably more easily preventable is it though? Crime has been with us since the dawn of civilization. It's easier to tell a story in which crime is personalized and framed as preventable but in reality there's always new modes of crime, new criminals, always the incentive for people to steal when they can, and so on. When societies manage to "stomp out" crime they're no less brutal than when they attempt to stop a pandemic. I think what a society frames as aberrant is just a reflection of the kind of public morality they endorse. A society of pirates probably thinks scorbut is more undeserved than being punished for theft.

somenameforme 1y ago
> When societies manage to "stomp out" crime they're no less brutal than when they attempt to stop a pandemic. I don't think this is necessarily true. Because when trying to stamp out a pandemic, everybody was negatively affected. When trying to stamp out crime, it's overwhelmingly suspected criminals that are affected. Not long ago El-Salvador had literally the highest homicide rate in the world and was just a domestic war-zone. It's now rated as the 8th safest country in the world [1]. What did they do? Dramatically bump up the penalties for gang membership, round up gang members, and throw them into militarized prisons. Their President now has a 90%+ approval rating, and is one of the most well regarded leaders in the world. Obviously there's a 'First they came for the Communists, And I did not speak out, Because I was not a Communist...' type concern here. But in this case, it seems that first they came for the criminals, crime plummeted, and everybody lived happily ever after. And again there are also completely reasonable human rights concerns, but the thing I think people often disregard in this calculus is the human rights of the literally 99% of people who were previously being terrorized, killed, robbed, and so on by the 1% of people. They have obviously rounded up some people who are innocent and they are making efforts to resolve that, and I hope those who are truly innocent receive fair compensation for the distress. But if one views human rights as a net (gains, versus losses), then El Salvador is vastly more humane than it was in the past. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/650516/global-safety-starts-slip.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/650516/global-safety-starts-sli...
- tastyface 1y ago