Hacker News Reader

Comment by SN76477 | Hacker News Reader

I hate to say this, but I believe that petty crime has to be accepted as a cost of a truly free society.

I would not want to be in your situation, but the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

People down voted you but completely ignore the fact that California basically tried just that and still has it on its books and the results were so predictable [1]

proposition 47 made anything below $950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor which likely means the thieves face no pursuit and no punishment. this led to a spike in car break ins as well. You can do this daily!

the simple matter he is that those voting on such changes to the law are not going to be troubled by the uptick as where they tread they are likely never to be victims of their policy

[1] https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/while-cities-homeless-...

How long before car manufacturers design windows that always cost $950+ to fix, so that any break-in is above the felony threshold?

Um, no thank you.

I've seen a mugging in Brazil. They are so frequent there that everyone I talked to has been mugged on the street. Friends of mine have been carjacked and kidnapped for 8 hours.

The police won't investigate a mugging. You're wasting your time to report it.

Let's not "accept" crimes that we think are not serious. All crime needs to be investigated and appropriate punishment given. Living in a society where some crime is OK is not a great place to live.

I don’t think that increasing police presence and surveillance is the answer to stopping petty crime, it just punishes people who need help and or creates a corrupt police dept, exasperating the problem further.

If we provide avenues for people to provide for themselves, crime will drop, and we avoid all of the chilling side effects of total surveillance.

I wouldn't consider mugging a petty crime.

I wouldn't consider anything violent or premeditated "petty"

Correct.

And I say over and over, it is time to evaluate the true cost of crime.

I think that's a different statement than the one you said earlier.

Society should accept a little crime to be free != evaluate the true cost of crime.

So if there's a neighborhood that has the potential to sell Condos for $1.7M each but currently has houses that are $50k and we find out that the crime in the area is keeping that value so low - should we go after the thieves for stealing $1.7M from homeowners?

I'm just saying because that's one of the ways you add up the "true cost of crime".

Im thinking on a very small level. Policing efforts should cost less than the crime. Too often it is the opposite.

I would rather someone speed through my neighborhood than have 3 police cars make a spectacle and spend thousands of dollars.

Speeding is a problem fixed by a proper education (in theory) It is not fixed by chasing someone down and giving them a speeding ticket.

As a counterpoint, this was on HN 2 days ago:

>As crime dries up, Japan’s police hunt for things to do

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20570763

In a way, isn't this kind of what insurance against theft should be for? I.e. you can't eliminate all petty crime, as there's diminishing returns on efforts put into preventing it, but insurance can ensure the occasional victim can get compensation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com