4 ms·

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

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.
      - tolerance 8mo ago
        The people I have in mind are the rich, poor and those who fantasize becoming wealthy and fear going broke. I’m uncertain how much these demographics account for the US population and empirically speaking I’m unsure of the gravity of the PR stirs you named. I really don’t know if privacy is the foremost concern when the types of people I’m thinking of consider ICE either. It really seems to boil down to whether these types of people can be effectively sold on the virtue of tearing down the barriers of privacy and government. If they aren’t already implicitly sold to that then all it takes is for the powers that be to do a better job at marketing their initiative.
- bradleybuda 8mo ago
  There is excellent recent (last 10y) research on this; summary here: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr... Unfortunately, the US and many other countries have chosen the other path (sporadic enforcement with severe punishment) largely because it's easier to implement. There's a lot of momentum to change this but it's politically difficult at least in America.
- japanuspus 8mo ago
  "Gnonom" by Nick Harkaway describes a society that takes this all the way to invasive mind-reading. A very special read.
- yreg 8mo ago
  My city semi-recently introduced a citywide parking system. They have hired plenty of inspectors and there is like 95% chance you will get a ticket if you don't pay for the parking. No one breaks the rules intentionally anymore.
- nkmnz 8mo ago
  I‘d rather live in a littered place, thank you.
brirec 8mo ago
The failings of the broken windows theory[1] would strongly disagree. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory?wprov=sf...
- rmunn 8mo ago
  So what are the failings? A quick skim through the Wikipedia article found plenty of criticism, but all the evidence I could find in my quick skim was in support of the theory. It's very likely I missed something in my skim; could you point to a specific section of the article where the evidence against the theory is presented?
  - z33k 8mo ago
    I would be surprised if we ever got evidence against the broken windows theory, simply due to crime in general being a (wicked problem)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem].
halapro 8mo ago
Don't people feel anxious all the time? I do when I visit certain places like Singapore, where any misstep feels illegal.
- linkregister 8mo ago
  The residents of Singapore I've known seemed at ease in public. The rules really aren't that unreasonable. How much littering do you do annually? I would guess the annual litter count of my friends averages around zero. Press freedom is limited in Singapore and that is a significant problem for its democracy. As a tourist this is unlikely to impact you. Otherwise, rule of law is paramount in Singapore.
- khafra 8mo ago
  I spent a few days in Singapore, long ago. I felt slightly anxious, but mostly because I wasn't familiar with the rules. I'm confident that, if I spent a year or two there, I would quickly become far less anxious than in other places--because the rules are so clear and consistently enforced. The less of a judgement call is involved, the less there is to be uncertain about. Think about it: Is it better to have a posted speed limit of 65mph and a real speed limit of 75mph, and you just have to learn from experience where the real limit is? Or is it better to post 75mph and fine any driver as soon as they exceed it?
  - account42 8mo ago
    The point of poster a lower speed limit than what is applied is because both the sensors used by the police and in your card are inaccurate and it's unreasonable to constantly fine people who thought (and perhaps even were) within the limit. And this applies to most other laws too - we can't expect everyone to know all the edge cases so some leniency for honest mistakes is needed.
- HauntingPin 8mo ago
  Don't litter, don't do drugs, don't chew gum, don't drink in public after 10:30pm, and only smoke in designated areas. It really isn't that difficult.
lenkite 8mo ago
> It's not actually the extreme punishments, it's the consistent small punishments. Not just the consistent small punishments, but the painful punishments. Pain is an extremely good, human motivator. Why destroy someones life and spend valuable taxpayer money with a 10 year imprisonment, when a rigorous caning session will be 10x more effective ? Many criminals will loudly thump their chest if punishment is merely jail but will dance on eggs to avoid buttock-pain. Singapore recently introduced 24 strokes for scamming and fraud. https://apnews.com/article/singapore-caning-scam-law-4f12fbbf443ba7ec2227c4800ca1efa0 https://apnews.com/article/singapore-caning-scam-law-4f12fbb... Pain keeps Singapore Polite!
- RobotToaster 8mo ago
  I guess Singapore doesn't have a lot of masochists?
  - lenkite 8mo ago
    Even Masochists have a limit to Pain Tolerance. Unless you are talking about 1-in-a-billion "Ironman" guy with dead nerves or someone totally drugged, the overwhelming majority of human beings cannot last beyond the 10th stroke at the maximum without begging for mercy. Singapore's judicial caning officers (jokingly called "commandos") are trained to deliver strokes in a way that inflicts MAXIMUM pain while staying within strict procedural limits to avoid permanent injury. Officers undergo specific training on posture, swing technique, accurate aiming, and using full body weight to generate high force and speed, up to around 160 km/h at impact, with forces exceeding 800–900 Newtons. "Strokes are precisely placed to avoid criss-crossing (creating a neat "ladder" pattern) and to ensure consistency and full effect rather than randomness." The explicit goal of the technique is to maximize pain per stroke: they are trained to induce as much pain as possible with each blow. There are several examples of criminals who had multiple arrests and jail sentences, but after their first and last caning session quit criminal life and turned over a new leaf.
    - bschwarz 8mo ago
      Considering caning often creates scars I don't see how it avoids permanent injury.
pjc50 8mo ago
Yes, but it's a difficult equilibrium to reach. It's easy to ticket 100% of littering if not many people are doing it. There is another side to this, which is that the police need to not hassle people who are not committing crime. Which is why you'd struggle to adopt this anywhere in America.

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.
    - tolerance 8mo ago
      The people I have in mind are the rich, poor and those who fantasize becoming wealthy and fear going broke. I’m uncertain how much these demographics account for the US population and empirically speaking I’m unsure of the gravity of the PR stirs you named. I really don’t know if privacy is the foremost concern when the types of people I’m thinking of consider ICE either. It really seems to boil down to whether these types of people can be effectively sold on the virtue of tearing down the barriers of privacy and government. If they aren’t already implicitly sold to that then all it takes is for the powers that be to do a better job at marketing their initiative.
bradleybuda 8mo ago
There is excellent recent (last 10y) research on this; summary here: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr... Unfortunately, the US and many other countries have chosen the other path (sporadic enforcement with severe punishment) largely because it's easier to implement. There's a lot of momentum to change this but it's politically difficult at least in America.
japanuspus 8mo ago
"Gnonom" by Nick Harkaway describes a society that takes this all the way to invasive mind-reading. A very special read.
yreg 8mo ago
My city semi-recently introduced a citywide parking system. They have hired plenty of inspectors and there is like 95% chance you will get a ticket if you don't pay for the parking. No one breaks the rules intentionally anymore.
nkmnz 8mo ago
I‘d rather live in a littered place, thank you.

brirec 8mo ago

The failings of the broken windows theory[1] would strongly disagree. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory?wprov=sf...

rmunn 8mo ago
So what are the failings? A quick skim through the Wikipedia article found plenty of criticism, but all the evidence I could find in my quick skim was in support of the theory. It's very likely I missed something in my skim; could you point to a specific section of the article where the evidence against the theory is presented?
- z33k 8mo ago
  I would be surprised if we ever got evidence against the broken windows theory, simply due to crime in general being a (wicked problem)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem].

halapro 8mo ago

Don't people feel anxious all the time? I do when I visit certain places like Singapore, where any misstep feels illegal.

linkregister 8mo ago
The residents of Singapore I've known seemed at ease in public. The rules really aren't that unreasonable. How much littering do you do annually? I would guess the annual litter count of my friends averages around zero. Press freedom is limited in Singapore and that is a significant problem for its democracy. As a tourist this is unlikely to impact you. Otherwise, rule of law is paramount in Singapore.
khafra 8mo ago
I spent a few days in Singapore, long ago. I felt slightly anxious, but mostly because I wasn't familiar with the rules. I'm confident that, if I spent a year or two there, I would quickly become far less anxious than in other places--because the rules are so clear and consistently enforced. The less of a judgement call is involved, the less there is to be uncertain about. Think about it: Is it better to have a posted speed limit of 65mph and a real speed limit of 75mph, and you just have to learn from experience where the real limit is? Or is it better to post 75mph and fine any driver as soon as they exceed it?
- account42 8mo ago
  The point of poster a lower speed limit than what is applied is because both the sensors used by the police and in your card are inaccurate and it's unreasonable to constantly fine people who thought (and perhaps even were) within the limit. And this applies to most other laws too - we can't expect everyone to know all the edge cases so some leniency for honest mistakes is needed.
HauntingPin 8mo ago
Don't litter, don't do drugs, don't chew gum, don't drink in public after 10:30pm, and only smoke in designated areas. It really isn't that difficult.

lenkite 8mo ago

> It's not actually the extreme punishments, it's the consistent small punishments. Not just the consistent small punishments, but the painful punishments. Pain is an extremely good, human motivator. Why destroy someones life and spend valuable taxpayer money with a 10 year imprisonment, when a rigorous caning session will be 10x more effective ? Many criminals will loudly thump their chest if punishment is merely jail but will dance on eggs to avoid buttock-pain. Singapore recently introduced 24 strokes for scamming and fraud. https://apnews.com/article/singapore-caning-scam-law-4f12fbbf443ba7ec2227c4800ca1efa0 https://apnews.com/article/singapore-caning-scam-law-4f12fbb... Pain keeps Singapore Polite!

RobotToaster 8mo ago
I guess Singapore doesn't have a lot of masochists?
- lenkite 8mo ago
  Even Masochists have a limit to Pain Tolerance. Unless you are talking about 1-in-a-billion "Ironman" guy with dead nerves or someone totally drugged, the overwhelming majority of human beings cannot last beyond the 10th stroke at the maximum without begging for mercy. Singapore's judicial caning officers (jokingly called "commandos") are trained to deliver strokes in a way that inflicts MAXIMUM pain while staying within strict procedural limits to avoid permanent injury. Officers undergo specific training on posture, swing technique, accurate aiming, and using full body weight to generate high force and speed, up to around 160 km/h at impact, with forces exceeding 800–900 Newtons. "Strokes are precisely placed to avoid criss-crossing (creating a neat "ladder" pattern) and to ensure consistency and full effect rather than randomness." The explicit goal of the technique is to maximize pain per stroke: they are trained to induce as much pain as possible with each blow. There are several examples of criminals who had multiple arrests and jail sentences, but after their first and last caning session quit criminal life and turned over a new leaf.
  - bschwarz 8mo ago
    Considering caning often creates scars I don't see how it avoids permanent injury.

pjc50 8mo ago

Yes, but it's a difficult equilibrium to reach. It's easy to ticket 100% of littering if not many people are doing it. There is another side to this, which is that the police need to not hassle people who are not committing crime. Which is why you'd struggle to adopt this anywhere in America.