The Bay Area Crime Wave
darrellowens.substack.com
darrellowens.substack.com
He's pretending to give a shit but each time that's just a setup for him to downplay the issue and scold you for not caring about other things instead.
The narrative that this post itself is part of:
* Crime is ackshaully down, not up, so...
* ... the subreddit is talking about crime too much ...
* ... and anyways, only out-of-town Nazis/Republicans/Trump voters are posting these articles ...
* ... and anyways, only big companies with insurance are being robbed, so we shouldn't care ...
* ... and anyways, slavery, white supremacy, and redlining made these benighted souls commit these victimless crimes
"I don’t really know if there’s a crime wave regardless of the perception that there is one.
...
What really gets to me though is that there _is_ a clear crime wave happening. Oakland’s at its 127th homicide as of typing this."
He seems to be arguing that the police should be spending more effort stopping crime in poor neighborhoods, that doesn't get as much publicity as smash-and-grabs in Union Square. Fine with me!
The crux of the author's argument seems to be that the punishment outweighs the crime. But I am still hard-pressed to see how the alternative of not pursuing criminal charges is any better.
> Many of those kids who participated are probably suffering from anxiety right now, knowing any day the police will show up to their door and arrest them, let alone the aggressive media coverage they’re getting. For many of those youths, that terrible anxiety or a simple arrest is enough to never do it again. Yet the Bay Area’s DAs are all announcing felony charges for those involved.
Would they be 'suffering' the anxiety if the consequences were less severe? How do we know they would never do it again? In fact, aren't they just as likely to be pulled into a life of crime if the punishment is too lenient as too severe?
Edit: don't take my word for it, though. See for yourself: https://jobs.abf.com/abfjobs/JobDetail/Carlisle-Pennsylvania...
I mean, it's a lame excuse for crime, but your counter-argument doesn't work.
Is it really a lack of jobs driving these young people to crime, like the essay claims?
>> I can go to a warehouse here in cheap Central PA and have a job tomorrow making $30-35/hr working on the loading dock. You can live on that here
isn't going to get you enough to live in the Bay Area.
> Is it really a lack of jobs driving these young people to crime, like the essay claims?
No, it's their own moral weakness plus perceived opportunity. I thought I made that clear in my previous comment.
> I look at communities like Detroit and I understand why the youth there resort to crime, but what the hell is the matter with the Bay Area? Arguably the wealthiest metropolitan area in the United States. A place with too many jobs and not enough people to fill them.