New San Francisco Initiative to Pay Individuals Not to Shoot Others
newsweek.com
newsweek.com
https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-washington-crime-finan...
77% drop in homicides
http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pd...
Old article, but $300m per prisoner:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-dea...
In other words is it a catalyst for real change? Or is it simply a government sponsored protection racket?
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Richmond-California.htm...
Also how sustainable is this in the long term? How long will SF keep paying them? What happens if they stop paying some day?
"There are opportunities for participants to earn an additional $200 each month as they work to improve their community. Some ways they can earn more are by working, going to school and even being a mediator in situations that could lead to violence."
This sounds a bit better though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origi...
Edit: Just because someone doesn’t live inside your echo-chamber doesn’t mean you should shower them with downvotes.
I suspect the odds of unexpected outcomes would be low here though because the program itself is small (only 10 people). And there are inherent downsides to engaging in behavior that make others think you're likely to shoot someone, so it's not something you do on a whim.
If you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, you’re increasing the fitness of the potential murderers over the peaceful people.
In the original Cobra Effect example the desired outcome was a reduction in the number of wild cobras. The thing that earned the payout was turning in a dead cobra. The way to turn in dead cobras that was easier and did not correlate with a reduction in wild cobras was breeding cobras to kill and turn in.
In the San Fransisco case the desired outcome is that a group of people don't shoot anyone for a month. The payout is earned by not shooting anyone for a month. As far as I can tell not shooting anyone for a month perfectly correlates with not shooting anyone for a month, and hence no Cobra Effect is possible.
Actually, macro is voodoo ... The sub-discipline of economics that deals with individual incentives and behavior is microeconomics.
America really is a very strange place.
Celebrating criminals getting away with crimes does not make you superior.
See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO...
"There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."
The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state.
The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require?
Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.
The vast majority of people, in every community, are already influenced by incentives that are much heavier than this one; it's not gonna cause a spate of murders, because it they currently are responding to a time horizon that's driving their behaviors.