Hacker News Reader

Comment by drewmol | Hacker News Reader

No, they are not. But ideally the advantage the 'richer' party has in influencing the effort of the investigators/judiciary to put forth more effort on their behalf is not written policy, it is corruption/cronyism. Should we create policy that prioritizes investigating an auto theft of a $100,000 automobile with more resources and severity that the theft of a $20,000 one, simply because the value is larger, or weight the effort based on the tax contribution of the victim? I would say absolutely not.

View on HN

I guess the theft of a more expensive car should be investigated with higher priority because selling it gives criminals more money to work with and leads to more severe crime. A group that can steal and sell a Lamborghini likely runs a much larger and more organized operation than a group which steals and sells old cheap cars.

This is all guessing though, I'd love to see more data on it.

This assumes a linear margin on units of stolen cars to value. Smaller ticket items are easier to fence specifically because they are common. It's hard to sell the Mona Lisa. It's easy to sell a mass-produced TV. Cops would spot a stolen Lamborghini as soon as the APB comes in. Not so much for a Toyota Camry.

I remember reading somewhere the top car make/model stolen was the Honda Civic.

No doubt. High resale + common item = higher portion of thefts, I would expect.

Yeah, and that's why I said that a group that can actually steal and sell a Lamborghini successfully should be investigated with more resources, since you are more likely to find a well organised criminal organisation behind it, if they can shift Lamborghinis the can probably shift drugs and guns too.

We disagree then, I think they absolutely should prioritize that because of the tax contribution of the victim. If I pay someone $1000 for a job, and you pay the same person $100 for an opposing job - you should lose. That's only my capitalist opinion, but I don't think it's an unpopular one.

Probably disagree on some aspects, and I may not have choosen the best example, or clarified my position enough. In a situation where two parties are voluntarily engaging in competition(for a job applicant), the party who offers more value usually does win, and I think that's appropriate. And I support allocating resources to fight crime based upon the effect of the crime's proceeds in supporting or leading to further crime. In mandatory participation systems like public civil services I am for at least a baseline allocation of resourses not directly correlated to financial input of the particular recipient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com