5 ms·

>I don’t know what exactly it was, but Singapore felt incredibly safe and crime-free. The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do w

>I don’t know what exactly it was, but Singapore felt incredibly safe and crime-free. The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do with it.

StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
I don't think it explains everything. I think social norms have a lot to do with it. It's like the actual social costs of being the one who broke the social trust is so high it dissuades people. It worked for me on a lower level. Everyone cut queues and will grab an empty seat if it looks available at a packed restaurant here so I do it too but I never did that when I lived in Singapore because I knew that's not how things work there and people would genuinely be mad at me for doing it. It's like a self-fulfilling, self-improving environment. Same with Japan and cleanliness. State provided housing for most and a booming economy with low unemployment must help too.
wredcoll 8mo ago
> The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do with it. Historically speaking, this is almost never true. People constantly think the solution is crueler punishments and we have hundreds of years of records of what happens.
- Camus134 8mo ago
  [dead]
- hamdingers 8mo ago
  People who commit crimes generally do not think they will be caught and therefore the punishment is of no concern to them. The better way to deter crime[1] is to convince more of the public that people who commit crimes are usually caught. Preferably by actually catching people who commit crimes. 1. aside from the obviously effective but difficult to implement deterrent of meeting everyone's physical needs
  - cortesoft 8mo ago
    A lot of crimes are also committed by people who genuinely don't think about the consequences when they are acting. It doesn't matter how bad or how certain the consequence is, because they aren't thinking about it at all.
    - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
      But apparently there are far fewer such people in Singapore. How would you explain this? I think the explanation is that growing up in an environment where even small infringements are consistently punished makes people think about the consequences more.
      - decremental 8mo ago
        [dead]
      - rmunn 8mo ago
        This is exactly right. People who get away with some rule-breaking, whether it's large or small, once will start to think maybe they can get away with it a second time. Get away with it a dozen times and you start to think you can get away with it every time, leading to the "people who genuinely don't think about the consequences when they are acting" that cortesoft mentioned. That sort of behavior isn't just a facet of personality, it's trained (or it might be more accurate to say, it wasn't trained out of them — all children act on impulse, it's the nature of children, but if their parents consistently punish them for sneaking cookies out of the cookie jar and they never get away with it, they eventually learn not to do it in the first place and to think about the consequences before they act). So when a lot of people grow up in an environment where small rulebreakings are consistently caught and punished (the former is more important, can't punish what isn't detected), they learn from an early age that rulebreaking carries consequences nearly every time, and you end up with far fewer people willing to break the rules.
        wredcoll 8mo ago
- broken-kebab 8mo ago
  "Hundreds of years of records" sounds like a big exaggeration. I don't think we can reliable talk about more than 150 years, and even that would be sparse, covering only some lucky countries. And this data is hard to evaluate as adjusting it to culture shifts, economy changes, and even to what constitutes "cruel" in different periods isn't easy. I think, it's reasonable to suspect that demonstrative cruelty in crime punishment may have bad side-effects in the long run, but there are just a few cases in recent history where at least short-term outcomes seem to support the claim that it may reduce crime levels.
  - wredcoll 8mo ago
    > but there are just a few cases in recent history where at least short-term outcomes seem to support the claim that it may reduce crime levels Those studies would be interesting to read, can you link them?
irjustin 8mo ago
That is just the part that gets the most press. Having lived here for a while now. 1. At a young age, you're taught to follow the rules. 2. "Someone's always watching". Lots of CCTV. Community reports. 3. Plenty of police who have the ability and time to investigate even the most petty things. Trust in the system starts with 1 but is really carried day to day by 3.
some_random 8mo ago
It's not actually the extreme punishments, it's the consistent small punishments. It's that you'll actually, seriously get a ticket for littering, even if it's a relatively small ticket. The "Fine City" enforces it's vision in a ubiquitous way, so people just don't break the rules.
- Gigachad 8mo ago
  This seems like the most effective solution. Imagine if you knew that if you littered, there is a 100% chance you would get a $10 fine immediately. Almost no one would litter ever again, even though the fine is much smaller than the fine is in most countries. Problem is it just takes a lot of resources to police, more than the fine revenue. But with CCTV and computer vision it's getting increasingly cheap.
  - acchow 8mo ago
    > But with CCTV and computer vision it's getting increasingly cheap. The barrier in the US isn't cost. It's a right to privacy and a culture of distrust of government.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tolerance 8mo ago
      I think that barrier may be weakening. I reckon that the people most concerned about crime are willing to sacrifice their privacy and defer to their government to prevent crime.
      - yellottyellott 8mo ago
        Some people, sure. But I think the shenanigans of ICE are making people more aware of the importance of privacy. Look at the backlash Ring (lost dog superbowl ad) and Discord (age verification) and Nest (Guthrie case) received just this year.
initramfs2 8mo ago
I would say it's the carrot and stick play, they're really good at it. Outsiders/foreigners only hear the things about fines and caning and the death sentence and no chewing gum. But they don't see the carrot part. For example they give conscripts something like a 401k top up and some other benefits to attend their reservist trainings. Of course if you don't turn up it's probably jail or some shit. They also pay them to keep in shape through PT exams, and they also reimburse your salary for the time taken. Conversely if you don't turn up there's a fine or some tedious make up sessions.
zdc1 8mo ago
As someone who's lived there, it's definitely more about the consistency. Generally speaking, if you make a police report, it will be investigated. This includes for smaller issues like lost items too. From what I understand, their courts also give fairly consistent sentences. Combine this with the fact that Singapore is small and full of security cameras, and it create a situation where breaking the law carries a decent risk of getting caught as police will have the willingness and resources to investigate. On top of this, a massive proportion of the population are there on work visas. For these people, any sort of crime or bad behaviour would mean deportation and loss of their job. As an aside, here's an interesting CNA documentary on their prisons: https://youtu.be/tJqRPycWUDg https://youtu.be/tJqRPycWUDg

>I don’t know what exactly it was, but Singapore felt incredibly safe and crime-free. The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do with it.

StopDisinfo910 8mo ago

I don't think it explains everything. I think social norms have a lot to do with it. It's like the actual social costs of being the one who broke the social trust is so high it dissuades people. It worked for me on a lower level. Everyone cut queues and will grab an empty seat if it looks available at a packed restaurant here so I do it too but I never did that when I lived in Singapore because I knew that's not how things work there and people would genuinely be mad at me for doing it. It's like a self-fulfilling, self-improving environment. Same with Japan and cleanliness. State provided housing for most and a booming economy with low unemployment must help too.

wredcoll 8mo ago

> The extreme punishments for breaking the law might have something to do with it. Historically speaking, this is almost never true. People constantly think the solution is crueler punishments and we have hundreds of years of records of what happens.

Camus134 8mo ago
[dead]
hamdingers 8mo ago
People who commit crimes generally do not think they will be caught and therefore the punishment is of no concern to them. The better way to deter crime[1] is to convince more of the public that people who commit crimes are usually caught. Preferably by actually catching people who commit crimes. 1. aside from the obviously effective but difficult to implement deterrent of meeting everyone's physical needs
- cortesoft 8mo ago
  A lot of crimes are also committed by people who genuinely don't think about the consequences when they are acting. It doesn't matter how bad or how certain the consequence is, because they aren't thinking about it at all.
  - akoboldfrying 8mo ago
    But apparently there are far fewer such people in Singapore. How would you explain this? I think the explanation is that growing up in an environment where even small infringements are consistently punished makes people think about the consequences more.
    - decremental 8mo ago
      [dead]
    - rmunn 8mo ago
      This is exactly right. People who get away with some rule-breaking, whether it's large or small, once will start to think maybe they can get away with it a second time. Get away with it a dozen times and you start to think you can get away with it every time, leading to the "people who genuinely don't think about the consequences when they are acting" that cortesoft mentioned. That sort of behavior isn't just a facet of personality, it's trained (or it might be more accurate to say, it wasn't trained out of them — all children act on impulse, it's the nature of children, but if their parents consistently punish them for sneaking cookies out of the cookie jar and they never get away with it, they eventually learn not to do it in the first place and to think about the consequences before they act). So when a lot of people grow up in an environment where small rulebreakings are consistently caught and punished (the former is more important, can't punish what isn't detected), they learn from an early age that rulebreaking carries consequences nearly every time, and you end up with far fewer people willing to break the rules.
      - wredcoll 8mo ago
broken-kebab 8mo ago
"Hundreds of years of records" sounds like a big exaggeration. I don't think we can reliable talk about more than 150 years, and even that would be sparse, covering only some lucky countries. And this data is hard to evaluate as adjusting it to culture shifts, economy changes, and even to what constitutes "cruel" in different periods isn't easy. I think, it's reasonable to suspect that demonstrative cruelty in crime punishment may have bad side-effects in the long run, but there are just a few cases in recent history where at least short-term outcomes seem to support the claim that it may reduce crime levels.
- wredcoll 8mo ago
  > but there are just a few cases in recent history where at least short-term outcomes seem to support the claim that it may reduce crime levels Those studies would be interesting to read, can you link them?

irjustin 8mo ago

That is just the part that gets the most press. Having lived here for a while now. 1. At a young age, you're taught to follow the rules. 2. "Someone's always watching". Lots of CCTV. Community reports. 3. Plenty of police who have the ability and time to investigate even the most petty things. Trust in the system starts with 1 but is really carried day to day by 3.

some_random 8mo ago

It's not actually the extreme punishments, it's the consistent small punishments. It's that you'll actually, seriously get a ticket for littering, even if it's a relatively small ticket. The "Fine City" enforces it's vision in a ubiquitous way, so people just don't break the rules.

Gigachad 8mo ago
This seems like the most effective solution. Imagine if you knew that if you littered, there is a 100% chance you would get a $10 fine immediately. Almost no one would litter ever again, even though the fine is much smaller than the fine is in most countries. Problem is it just takes a lot of resources to police, more than the fine revenue. But with CCTV and computer vision it's getting increasingly cheap.
- acchow 8mo ago
  > But with CCTV and computer vision it's getting increasingly cheap. The barrier in the US isn't cost. It's a right to privacy and a culture of distrust of government.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tolerance 8mo ago
    I think that barrier may be weakening. I reckon that the people most concerned about crime are willing to sacrifice their privacy and defer to their government to prevent crime.
    - yellottyellott 8mo ago
      Some people, sure. But I think the shenanigans of ICE are making people more aware of the importance of privacy. Look at the backlash Ring (lost dog superbowl ad) and Discord (age verification) and Nest (Guthrie case) received just this year.

initramfs2 8mo ago

I would say it's the carrot and stick play, they're really good at it. Outsiders/foreigners only hear the things about fines and caning and the death sentence and no chewing gum. But they don't see the carrot part. For example they give conscripts something like a 401k top up and some other benefits to attend their reservist trainings. Of course if you don't turn up it's probably jail or some shit. They also pay them to keep in shape through PT exams, and they also reimburse your salary for the time taken. Conversely if you don't turn up there's a fine or some tedious make up sessions.

zdc1 8mo ago

As someone who's lived there, it's definitely more about the consistency. Generally speaking, if you make a police report, it will be investigated. This includes for smaller issues like lost items too. From what I understand, their courts also give fairly consistent sentences. Combine this with the fact that Singapore is small and full of security cameras, and it create a situation where breaking the law carries a decent risk of getting caught as police will have the willingness and resources to investigate. On top of this, a massive proportion of the population are there on work visas. For these people, any sort of crime or bad behaviour would mean deportation and loss of their job. As an aside, here's an interesting CNA documentary on their prisons: https://youtu.be/tJqRPycWUDg https://youtu.be/tJqRPycWUDg