Hacker News Reader

Comment by foota | Hacker News Reader

The alternative would be that they believe it is good policy and they're willing to accept some increase in crime. Not saying I necessarily agree or accept that the policies are necessarily causing an increase in crime, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this is a possibility. (that imo is not unlikely)

View on HN

In my social circle, which includes co-workers and families, this is explicitly stated, and it's rationalized with "they deserve more than they have, so if it takes crime to get them more, that's just in my book".

I think it's more likely than you expect, at least on the very vocal group that is aggressively pushing the overton window on our views on the social contract.

Next time you should ask them "do you think the all victims of those crimes deserved their fate as well?"

I try not to be aggressive when I engage in these conversations and instead focus on positive solutions based on finding out why they believe what they believe, instead of contrarian “in your face” sort of takes. They aren’t effective in my experience.

Read “the righteous mind” by Jonathan Haidt. Great audiobook too.

You are right it is a possibility, I actually think "incarceration rate" may actually be this alternative benchmark you suggested.

Now the question is do voters realize that benchmark can be artificially lowered by terrible policies that don't help anyone other than make some people "feel good"? We can literally make all crimes legal and we'd end up with an incarceration rate and prison population of zero.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com