3 ms·
I don't think surveillance prevents crime. Not having so many poor people prevents crime. Some people will always be antisocial due to tendencies and possibly
by LtWorf 3mo ago
I don't think surveillance prevents crime. Not having so many poor people prevents crime.
Some people will always be antisocial due to tendencies and possibly mental illness, but having a society that is so rich and yet has so many poor people as the USA will of course create criminals. No amount of cameras will solve that.
- mlrtime 3mo agoThere are plenty of poor immigrants who (shock) still come to the united states and do not commit crime. Low income correlates, but not cause/effect. Giving cash to poor people in high crime areas doesn't solve crime rates.
- Steltek 3mo agoNot having so many rich people will go a lot farther in reducing crime, at this point.
- pclowes 3mo agoI would agree with that, but we probably have different definitions of poor. Destitute? Absolutely. I don’t think anybody is shocked that starving people commit crimes to not die. However, I have been in plenty of low income high trust areas. In some ways, those were even more high trust. Economics play a role, but there is a moral and cultural fabric that gets built through repeated interactions overtime. Unfortunately, that fabric is very susceptible to damage. Eg: there are plenty of towns where you wouldn’t have to lock your car or even your bike, but it only takes a couple thefts for the entire culture to change…