Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsiaajdsdaa | Hacker News Reader

Fixing this is a two part issue. One, we cannot get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property.

Two, the way to prevent crime from happening is to make people feel in the heart and soul that crime is morally wrong and destructive for the community around them. This is not instinctual human behavior. For those who learn this and live this, great. For those who don't, see option #1.

View on HN

You want to know why I don't steal? It's because I don't have to. I have sufficient security of income and opportunity that it's not necessary.

I'm not bragging, though, what I'm getting at is that you're missing a huge part of why people steal - maybe even the largest part: because they feel they have to survive, or because it's okay because society is stacked against them.

This is what above was talking about when talking about fixing root causes. If you can ensure that people have shelter, food, safety, security, and belonging, you'll generally find that you don't need to _morally re-educate_ them, they won't have the impetus to steal.

What you're saying is, if the crooks have their basic necessities fulfilled, they would become politicians and CEO's instead of thieves?

Only half joking. You're right that you can fix 90% of crimes your way. But there is a group of people that, for some reason, just want to see the world burn or feel the power to make others miserable. We need to deal with them somehow.

Sure, but the US probably doesn’t need to have (one of the?) highest prison populations per capita in the world.

There are a lot of poor people who are not thieves.

I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else.

There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.

I don’t see anybody arguing that people doing this shouldn’t get charged.

I do read people (rightfully, IMO) claiming that societal changes can significantly decrease the number of people doing this.

I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.

> I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.

I do. I’ve lived in some foreign countries and have come to realize that culture plays just as much if not more of a role in crime as material conditions. America has some toxic aspects to our culture that contribute to our population being more likely to commit crimes. We are hyper individualist, and more violent across all socioeconomic levels.

I think we agree. I wasn’t clear enough, but I wrote the underscores in “its population _is_ more criminal” to implicitly contrast it with “its population _behaves_ more criminal”. It certainly does the latter, but that doesn’t imply the former.

Simplifying things, the USA tends to think that all people who _do_ crimes _are_ criminals and, hence, should be locked up in order to decrease the amount of crime, while other countries think circumstances may have made them perform crimes, and changing circumstances may be the best way to decrease crime because it’s cheaper and/or leads to a happier population.

(In general, I think (again simplifying things), the USA prefers sending in the cavalry to save the day over doing things to prevent the need for a cavalry. You see that in infrastructure maintenance, reactions to natural disasters, and in the way it does diplomacy in the middle east, too. California is somewhat of an exception there. It invests heavily preparing for the big one)

> "I don’t see anybody arguing that people doing this shouldn’t get charged."

This comment is basically arguing that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932479

They frame it a little indirectly, but it's the underlying core of their point.

You can advocate for policy that reduces crime while still enforcing laws against criminals and not excusing the criminal behavior.

I don’t see that claiming anything about whether to punish people who commit crimes. IMO, it argues that keeping people out of jail by making it easier for them to not perform crimes is better for everyone.

Even if it does, I didn’t see that comment when I wrote mine. HN currently shows my comment as 10 hours old, the one you mention as 9, so I also think I couldn’t have seen it.

Comment numbers also support that observation (29932220 < 29932479)

I live in a 3-rd world country that has like 40 times less GDP per capita than the United States. The vast majority of our people work in the fields growing crops and are much poorer than the poorest communities in the US. Our people have to survive, like for real. By your logic, theft, crime, murders and robberies should be rampant in my country because they “have to”. But my country is much safer in that regard that the US. Because we don’t “have to”. People in need do whatever they can to find a job. Those who can’t find a job, they go to Russia and find a job there. In no way in our culture it is considered acceptable to steal even if you “have to”. People are not animals. Social good, social relationships, morals, good parenting and family values are real things.

I’m not talking about those incapable to work, of course. Funny thing is, our government gives shelter to such people, and they don’t live in the streets as well.

United States is a paradoxical country.

Imo the comment you’re replying to is a kind of progressive left-wing university faculty lounge flavor of upper middle class politics and is not representative of the vast majority of Americans (but is overrepresented online).

I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.

> I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.

Jail isn't some magical free solution to your crime problems.

Would Americans still be so eager to imprison someone if they knew that the cost to incarcerate someone is ~$36k/yr? [1]

The government defines poverty as $12k/yr for individuals [2], which is three times less than the annual cost to incarcerate someone!

Is imprisoning someone at the taxpayer cost of ~$36k/yr a sustainable model?

At what point does America have a conversation about the cost of imprisonment versus the alternatives like raising the poverty line, raising minimum wage, or implementing social programs?

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09...

[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...

Yes, literally still imprison the people committing these crimes.

prisons create jobs while handouts incentivize poverty.

What is the cost of not imprisoning criminals? How much economic damage is caused by shutting down stores that keep getting looted?

You can advocate for policy that works to improve things that lead to increased crime and be strict about enforcing the law when crime occurs. While this doesn't necessarily fit cleanly into existing partisan politics, it is possible.

Excusing crime because of these other things I think is patronizing to the majority of poor people that are not criminals. It's also a luxury belief imo in that the majority of victims are ethical people in poor communities getting hurt by the criminals who mostly target them (which is why you see a lot of data in poor communities asking for increased policing).

I'd guess it's a view formed from a lack of interaction with the people committing these crimes (in addition to the victims) too. Anyone can rationalize criminal behavior and make it not their fault. I don't have much tolerance for this and don't think society should really either. Discretion exists and context does matter, but people have agency and are responsible for the choices they make.

Yes, that was the point of the original post. The further point was that this idea is entirely counterproductive.

You missed half of parent logic.

>it's okay because society is stacked against them.

If you can't find a job in the US, you won't go to another country to find one. After all, you're already in the "best country in the world".

The streets are accepted as the home of failed people (but only if we can't see them).

Medical care is provided only to people who can pay for it. That's only fair.

Also racism was solved with Obama, so just pull yourself by your bootstrap like everyone else.

Just work multiple jobs if you can't afford rent, maybe then you'll save enough to pay for education and get a higher wage job or start your own business.

The baseline wage for people able-bodied enough to raid a train is $32K/year in Southern California.

Respect for society, or lack thereof, happens at all levels. People partying and cheating their way through college, or running billion dollar ponzi schemes, aren't doing so because they have to survive, but the root cause is the same.

Are you under the impression that white collar crime doesn’t exist and there’s never been anyone above the poverty line to commit theft or fraud?

One doesn’t need to be impoverished to steal. Some subset of individuals will always be driven to obtain “more”, even if through illicit means.

> get rid of physical security, as everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property.

This kind of individual-first-thinking is probably one of the main reasons why we see pictures like in OP in the first place.

What do you propose should happen if someone breaks into your house with a baseball bat? Call the police and wait for them to arrive? Speak politely to the intruder?

I'm not saying everyone has the right to bomb Times Square. But I am saying that the "individual", which some people are asserting to be a taboo idea, can use force to have a chance at preserving their life within their private residence.

> everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their property.

To be clear, this is a political ideal of the Roman Empire that has influenced much of modern civlisation, it's not an inevitable state of humanity.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property goes at least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Every ancient civilization from Babylon to Tenochtitlan had some variation of this idea. It is practically the definition of civilization itself.

The idea that an individual has "[the] right to protect oneself and one’s property" is fundamentally inconsistent with the existence of slavery throughout most of humanity's history.

Obviously, but that isn’t what the GP comment asserted and it isn’t the statement I replied to.

It's not, though. The Roman idea of protecting oneself and one's property extended to one's slaves (which counted as property).

But unless I've misunderstood Graeber, the idea entered modern jurisprudence and took its recogniseable form from the Roman Empire. In other words, it either looked considerably different in civilisations like Babylon and Tenochtitian, or there's a historic gap of weaker property enforcement between those civilisations and ours.

I haven’t read any of David Graeber’s books. Your comment doesn’t make his thesis clear, but I do know what’s written in the Code of Hammurabi:

“If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_trans...

Likewise in pre-Columbian Mexico, as per the Florentine Codex:

“It was a crime to light a fire in the woods without permission, to cut down trees, to move boundary-markers, to take game from another man’s hunting trap and to steal crops from the fields. All these were crimes that could be punished by death.”

https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-t...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com