Broken windows theory
Whatever the fix for institutional racism is need not be contradictory to Broken Window. They can work together.
Now obviously there's a real debate to be had about how severely petty theft and vandalism should be punished. I mean, George Floyd was killed over a counterfeit bill.
But once you get into violent crime everybody is on the same page.
But basically, in order to get all the violent crime under control, you need a hefty police force. And a hefty police force means a lot of cops roving around hassling poor people and people of color who are just trying to live their lives, which is what the left-wing activists get angry about.
Figuring out how to get effective policing without intrinsic racism/classism that always seems to come with that is a big challenge.
The broken windows theory isn’t about violent crime, it’s literally about property crime and offenses like vandalism. The idea is that when that kind of petty crime goes unchecked, the crime situation in the area spirals, both in terms of quantity and severity, eventually leading to more violent crime.
You can disagree with the theory all you want, but to assert that the issue is that it should only apply to violent crime is to fundamentally misunderstand the assertion the theory is making.
As a result, the term "broken windows" now carries a ton of baggage, and is sometimes used as a racist dog whistle.
What some, or even a majority, go on to redefine it as does not change its original meaning. If a place looks like a dump people will treat it like a dump. You and wherever you read this from is conflating the issue with racism.
Most engineers aren't working on siege works any more.
How about we listen to what people are actually saying instead of twisting meaning to fit a narrative to further control speech? For those that are offended by speech and are demanding, essentially, the removal of the first amendment, it is a learning opportunity that words don't actually harm, only actions.
(And that’s just one state, every single state has had similar issues with this in their police forces)
The core problem is that this very important part hasn’t been happening.
It’s very simple. People who are never looked after by their community, but only harassed, beaten and killed, will not see themselves as part of that community but as an enemy.
Social values really matter. Countries with low crime rates don't have them because the police are educated about deescalation. That is important too and I support that, but the police are largely irrelevant to the underlying issue. This is coming from someone who grew up thinking social conservative types and people going on about social values needed to relax. I was wrong and realized that when I had children. Children absolutely need stability, reassurance, love and guidance from their mother and father, it's absolutely critical.
violence is inherent to animal life and it does not require delusion. that's like saying an alligator is delusional for attacking a deer.
Police are good for exactly one thing: responding to violence with violence
> The policy targeted people in areas with a significant amount of physical disorder and there appeared to be a causal relationship between the adoption of broken windows policing and the decrease in crime rate. Sridhar, however, discusses other trends (such as New York City's economic boom in the late 1990s) that created a "perfect storm" that contributed to the decrease of crime rate much more significantly than the application of the broken windows policy. Sridhar also compares this decrease of crime rate with other major cities that adopted other various policies and determined that the broken windows policy is not as effective.
> In a 2007 study called "Reefer Madness" in the journal Criminology and Public Policy, Harcourt and Ludwig found further evidence confirming that mean reversion fully explained the changes in crime rates in the different precincts in New York in the 1990s.[38] Further alternative explanations that have been put forward include the waning of the crack epidemic,[39] unrelated growth in the prison population by the Rockefeller drug laws,[39] and that the number of males from 16 to 24 was dropping regardless of the shape of the US population pyramid.
As always, the wikipedia article is a good place to start to look into further sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
It's time to let "broken window theory," and bloodthirsty, punitive "justice" strategies, die.
Perhaps this is true, and perhaps this is a part of the issue the usa has with "different facts for both sides."
> I'm certain that there are studies out there showing that broken windows policing was in fact the main contributor to the decrease in crime.
I'm going to challenge you on this because I feel like this basically just contributes to the problem. Think about what you wrote, you're "certain," certain that studies exist showing our that broken windows policing works, and thus you believe it works.
You arrived at a conclusion of the world with, genuinely, no evidence. You don't even know if the evidence exists! In fact you arrived at two conclusions: that your conclusion is correct, and that a lot of other people proved this with good studies.
Now I challenge you to simply read the wikipedia article on the subject in its entirety and pay close attention to the "criticism" section. I've done this because I care deeply about the issue, and I've also read the various studies linked. For me, I found the "for broken policing" studies to be dubious and problematic, and the criticisms to be valid. As a result, my understanding of the world is that broken window policing doesn't work, the basic theory is a misunderstanding of actual mechanisms, and that the application of broken windows policing pulls resources from more effective solutions while also delivering inequitable justice to society. So, when you're read up as well, do you still disagree with me?
> You arrived at a conclusion of the world with, genuinely, no evidence. You don't even know if the evidence exists! In fact you arrived at two conclusions: that your conclusion is correct, and that a lot of other people proved this with good studies.
Here's the thing - I do have evidence. But it's the evidence I've seen with my own eyes, not something I've read in some paper or study. My evidence is (I see no other way to put it than to be frank) just common sense.
I've met plenty of people in my life. I've seen humans and I know how humans behave. When there is threat of punishment, legitimate actual punishment, people fall into line. You have to know this to be true - it's literally human nature. People will act out as much as they possibly can before things get serious. Go look at any school, for instance. There's a massive difference between the "harsh" teachers' classrooms and the teachers who are known to be pushovers.
Punishments work. Deterrence works. It's something I personally know, as someone who has faced punishments many times. Another thing I personally know is that you can't take any shit. If people start trying to test your shit, test your boundaries, you have to stamp that behavior out immediately, or it will intensify. Again, it's a human nature thing. There exists bullies and sociopaths out there, and they will keep raising the bar of abuse. So in my view, tolerating petty crimes only leads to people pushing boundaries and more and more violent crime. Just like troublemaker students pushing the teacher further and further in poorly run classrooms.
And also, quite frankly, I like clean spaces. I hate grafitti, and drug addicts bothering everyone, and drunks passed out in the subway cars. I feel that our society should not tolerate such disorderliness, and instead should actively shun and punish such behavior, in order to strongly incentivize people to become productive and contributing members of society. Tolerating that stuff is like handing these people the keys to their own destruction. Sometimes other people do indeed know better and society needs to help these people get control of their lives.
Have I seen studies or other acceptable documentation for my conclusion? Nothing that I can specifically remember, or at least nothing that I have at hand. But I don't feel I NEED documentation. It's just so obvious to me that punishing crime serves to deter crime, and the harsher the punishment, the stronger the deterrent. I personally don't commit any crimes, I'd guess that at least 90% of people don't either, and I feel that harshly punishing things like vandalism or burglary will only make society better for all law-abiding citizens.
> But it's the evidence I've seen with my own eyes, not something I've read in some paper or study
Known as "anecdotal evidence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
> "Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence."
> My evidence is (I see no other way to put it than to be frank) just common sense.
No, it isn't, because it isn't common to me and other people that are in favor of evidence-based judicial methods, nor in general, left-leaning people. I notice a tendency of conservative ideology to claim "common sense" for their principles, but this seems to have usually just meant "the traditional beliefs I hold, backed by anecdotal evidence, confirmation and selection bias, and arrived at by refusing to think past the very first principle conclusion of a subject." A good example is "build the wall." Immigrants are coming in and that's Bad, for whatever reason. Simple, build a wall, that'll keep them out. I've seen fences keep my dogs in the backyard. It all works! This example is unrelated to the current topic, more representation of the style of thinking I believe necessary to maintain positions that fly directly in the face of evidence and deeper analysis.
> I've met plenty of people in my life. I've seen humans and I know how humans behave. When there is threat of punishment, legitimate actual punishment, people fall into line.
This argument could be used to justify, for example, corporeal punishment, which has been demonstrated to not work. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-pu...
It's another great example of why your self-assured "common sense" position fails. "If I threaten to beat my children, they stop stealing candy." No, they simply get better at stealing candy in a way that you don't notice, because you selected for avoiding traumatic punishment, not correcting behavior. Ample evidence holds this to be true and it is now the generally agreed upon medical consensus in child rearing, in short, it is "common sense" for those in the know.
> You have to know this to be true - it's literally human nature.
I don't know this to be true, it contradicts my experience, driven by a considered and researched approach to interpersonal relationships. Dale Carnegie is considered by many to be the foremost expert in interpersonal relationships and effective communication - where does he recommend "threat of punishment" in interpersonal relationships? Instead, he recommends empathy, treating others like equals, calmness, and clear communication. These are incompatible with harsh punishment.
Try this on for size: who gets better results, the asshole boss wielding the stick, or the boss that puts in the effort to get to know their team, communicate expectations, and shares and celebrates wins? Pick up any startup book recommended by all these ycombinator folks, see what type of boss they recommend you be.
Regarding your teacher example, I was once a teacher, and I come from a family of teachers. I'm not arguing for teachers to be pushovers, but the "harsh teachers" don't really get good results, at best they might get a quiet classroom. Is that what you want to measure and select for?
> Punishments work. Deterrence works.
Hammurabi code logic, and punishment + deterrence aren't as effective judicial strategies as restorative justice and rehabilitation of criminals. Example: Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway with the lowest recidivism rates in the world.
> Norway's prison system is renowned as one of the most effective and humane in the world.
Yet somehow this "least punitive" justice system on earth has the best results. This contradicts your "common sense."
> Another thing I personally know is that you can't take any shit. If people start trying to test your shit, test your boundaries, you have to stamp that behavior out immediately, or it will intensify.
Trying to apply your own interpersonal philosophy like this to a society's judicial strategy alone seems flawed. This is vague, which alone means we shouldn't be basing policy off of it. It also doesn't sound to me like a very developed personal philosophy. People have been writing about interpersonal philosophy for a while and I'm surprised this simplistic "smash those that give you shit" style didn't evaporate upon first reading of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.
> There exists bullies and sociopaths out there, and they will keep raising the bar of abuse.
Ironically, those in my camp find the "retributive justice" arguments you're making to be sociopathic. You see a homeless drug addict and immediately jump to "throw this degenerate in prison," rather than the more empathetic take of wondering what caused the person's life to fall to such a wretched state. You'd rather spend the money keeping them behind bars, punishing them for their "personal failings," than spend (demonstrably less) money trying to help them. As a former conservative, I believe this is because empathy, especially for perceived degenerates, feels icky and feels like weakness, which is an intolerable personal feeling to have. Forgive me for reaching so far if this isn't how you feel, but this is what I perceive that other still-conservative people believe.
> So in my view, tolerating petty crimes only leads to people pushing boundaries and more and more violent crime.
There isn't evidence to support this, and also this ignores that the definition of "crime" can change. Example, there's no good reason for weed to be illegal, and yet alcohol to be legal, considering alcohol is the far more dangerous drug. We saw exactly what is to be expected when alcohol is made illegal: the formation of alcohol cartels (mafia) that took over the streets. When prohibition ended, their power (income) was cut into pieces and the era of the mafia ended. No, going to war with them in the streets didn't solve it, ending prohibition did. And yet by your logic every person smoking weed on a street in Texas is technically a criminal. By tolerating their action we "tolerate more violent crime." The logic doesn't hold.
> I feel that our society should not tolerate such disorderliness, and instead should actively shun and punish such behavior, in order to strongly incentivize people to become productive and contributing members of society.
We tried that, and it doesn't seem to work. It turns out the best solution to homelessness is simply housing the homeless. "Housing First" is what I'm describing, and evidence shows it works better than what you're suggesting: https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/
It's also gross that what you're arguing for is kicking a beaten dog.
> society needs to help these people get control of their lives.
It's super weird to me that to the extent you're willing to acknowledge society has responsibility to their fellow man (who happen to be homeless), it's only to argue that we must essentially brutalize them to make them feel even worse about being homeless / drug addicts / whatever.
> Have I seen studies or other acceptable documentation for my conclusion? Nothing that I can specifically remember, or at least nothing that I have at hand
That's because there are none. That's because your position is based on feelings, not facts.
> But I don't feel I NEED documentation.
As an engineer, if I said this in a meeting about considering which technology to choose for a given application, I would be fired. I don't know why you think this is an acceptable way to opine about social issues, literally willfully ignorantly.
> It's just so obvious to me that punishing crime serves to deter crime, and the harsher the punishment, the stronger the deterrent
You are partially correct, but then entirely incorrect, regarding harsher punishment being a stronger deterrent:
> "The certainty of being caught is a vastly more "powerful deterrent than the punishment.
> "Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime."
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
> I personally don't commit any crimes
I don't believe you. Have you weighed every lobster you ever purchased? Ever picked up a feather without first checking it wasn't a bald eagle feather? Ever divert storm sewer water for fun?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/29/crime-law-...
There may be as many 300,000 federal regulations that carry criminal penalties. What's your bet you've never broken a single one? (hint: you basically can't possibly know, and this is why you should never talk to cops btw)
> and I feel that harshly punishing things like vandalism or burglary will only make society better for all law-abiding citizens.
This is reactionary rhetoric that just "others" undesirables and is why people like me push back so hard, btw. There's no such thing as a "law-abiding citizen" as I explained earlier. I don't want to get too much into the weeds of this, how cops are trained to see everyone as a potential enemy etc etc, but this is where this rhetoric from my position comes from.
TLDR Though you're self admittedly willfully ignorant, as in, by your own admission uninterested in reading into effective judicial strategies (or even really effective interpersonal relationship strategies), you hold strong opinion on how society should be run and believe you know enough that the rest of us should adopt your strategies. Why should we do that?
First of all, I feel like your post emanates barely-contained anger. Your choice of words and tone kind of betrays your contempt for me and my opinion. You're "fascinated" by my response, my views are "sociopathic", I'm "ignorant," yada yada. I can't say it makes it an appealing prospect to continue the discussion, because we fundamentally disagree, and I have a feeling that more insults will be flung my way. But against my instincts, I'll continue.
The first few segments of your response have to do with rejection of my principle of "common sense" as a guiding principle in my opinions about some of these issues. You go through point by point, rebutting each example I listed with a detailed refutation and a link to some study. There are quite a few strawmans and a lot of insinuations that I'm a conservative. I'll just start this discussion by telling you I voted for Biden, I don't ascribe some umbrella label to myself, so let's just cut this name calling out right now.
Here's the problem. I tell you, "my entire life experience tells me that X means Y. I know this to be a fundamental truth of the universe. I am CERTAIN of this." You reply: "That's totally incorrect. Here's a study or example where X does not equal Y. Here's my explanation of why X does not equal Y. Therefore you are wrong and willfully ignorant for still believing X equals Y." But what you don't understand is that it is very hard to change someone's mind when they are CERTAIN of something. It's like if you told me 2 + 2 equals 5, and linked to some study proving it, and wrote an essay on why it is the case, it still wouldn't change my mind. Because it directly contradicts my reality. My lived experience. My "common sense" position of, for instance, punishments being effective to deter crime is based on literally every experience I've ever had in my entire life. Are they perfect deterrents? Of course not. But I've changed my own behavior to avoid punishment, I've seen a million other people do the same, and there's no possible universe in which I could just read some study online and go "wow, I guess punishments don't work to deter crime!" That's not me being willfully ignorant, that's me not wasting my time with obvious falsehoods. Forgive my being harsh, but the "don't punish crimes" movement is the same as the flat earther movement in my view - so stupid, so obviously incorrect, that it isn't even worth a second of my time. Studies are not the arbiters of truth.
Now onto the next point I want to make. I think it should be perfectly clear to you that when I talk about punishing crimes, I'm talking about SERIOUS crimes. We're on a thread about the stabbing of Bob Lee, after all. For you to suggest my opinion is dumb because I speed or don't correctly weigh my lobster and therefore technically everyone is a criminal... that's YOU being willfully ignorant, dude. Everybody speeds but practically nobody stabs, vandalizes, robs, rapes, etc. THESE are the crimes that I want harshly punished. It's literally common sense, a theme that seems to keep popping up here. I'm honestly just dumbfounded that you seriously think me saying "I don't commit any crimes" is tantamount to me saying "I have literally never sped or broken any law in my entire life." Like god damn. When I talk about law abiding citizens I'm talking about people who don't commit crimes that make life drastically shittier for everyone else. And the vast majority of people on the planet fall into this category.
I could continue on, and go over the Norway thing and how I believe it's a completely different situation than the US, or go over the housing the homeless thing and talk about how expensive that would be in SF, or any of the other points, but I feel this would be a waste of time. Because I would guess it directly contradicts your lived experience. That's the thing. I don't comment to change people's minds. I don't comment to dunk on my political oppponents. I don't comment to show everyone what an idiot the other side is via angry point-by-point takedowns that are dripping with contempt. I literally just comment on HN because I like the discussion, I like hearing how people think and what their insights are. Hence what I originally commented: I wanted to comment "so we can exchange perspectives and see what someone 'on the other side' of the issue thinks." I really think there's no need for the clear contempt of the tone of your reply. We disagree, dude. It's no reason to get emotional. There are a lot of people out there and you'll likely find yourself disagreeing with many of them.
Same here. People are ignoring the research that highly punitive retributive justice systems don't work, and reformative justice systems do, because of some combination of yellow journalism and cognitive / rhetorical fallacy.
> Studies are not the arbiters of truth.
Certainly not all truths, and I agree with you that we can't expect people to fact check literally every aspect of their lives. However, your flat earth example is fantastic, here's why: the earth being flat is common sense. If you don't fly (many people) and have never seen the ocean (many people), don't think much about orbits or astronomy, why would you think the earth is round? There's a reason flat earthism is so popular, it really does "make good horse sense."
Grant me for a moment that to believe the earth is flat in 2023 requires believing in a massive global conspiracy, maybe instead let's consider a detached farmer in 1920. How about this guy: https://youtu.be/RS27u6IqWt0 . Consider what's necessary to know with certainty that the earth is a globe, and consider how they disagree with "common sense."
A flat earth would allow for seeing all the way to the end of it, right, so since you can't see all the way to new York city from here, the earth must be a globe, right? "No, fog prevents that, and tall trees, and mountains." Ok, the shadow cast on the moon during a lunar eclipse is always round, and the only shape that can do that is a sphere. "Well, that's nice, but I've never seen a lunar eclipse, and I don't really care to sit around moving shapes in front of a candle to see if that's true." Ok, time zones! If the earth was flat it would be the same time in new York and San Francisco, instead it's different. "Is it different? I didn't know, I don't have a telephone."
Without resorting to things completely outside the realm of "common sense," and basically coming up with good explanations for someone's daily experiences, i don't see how you could explain to someone (pre space age) how the earth is a globe. Can you think of a way?
I wish there was a more polite way to say "willful ignorant" but my point is basically, you've had the explanations, with evidence, for why your common sense doesn't align with reality, set before you, and you said "I don't want to read that, I'm good with my view of reality." I'm not trying to sell you essential oils here, this is just something outside your domain and to do it well takes some research and perhaps I guess something that disagrees with the "common sense" of some people. What else can I call that?
And anyway, surely you agree that when it comes to setting up our laws, infrastructure, we want to make sure to be doing so correctly? Before we build a bridge, don't we want some studies done on concrete before choosing the right kind? And isn't it best to have the domain experts doing that? And doesn't it make sense that even though every time you tried to use consumer concrete to build something with a gap, it crumbled, that's ok because we use a different kind for building in industrial applications with techniques involving rebar?
And I still hold the position that the retributive model isn't common sense, I've found great success with never wielding a stick as a leader in various spheres: teacher, social worker, sales leader, engineering lead, scout leader, burning man camp leader. It just seems common sense and agreed with my every day experience that punishment drives shit results. A story from "How to Win Friends": a tech fails to fuel a stunt pilot's plane well, he nearly crashes and perishes. Tech is apoplectic, apologizing profusely, offering to resign, pilot says "why would I fire the tech least likely to make a fuel calculation mistake in the future?" I only use this example to demonstrate that even in the domain you chose, that being business / school / interpersonal relationships, the "retributive " model isn't common sense or effective, though again I don't think it's a great idea to try to draw too many conclusions between handling a fuel calculation error and a premeditated crime or crime of passion.
> "I don't commit any crimes" is tantamount to me saying "I have literally never sped or broken any law in my entire life."
Well, do you see why maybe your common sense is maladjusted? For me I'm genuinely surprised at your surprise. What else is a criminal but someone who breaks the law? That's why I pushed back so hard! Your definition is vague! "Someone that does these crimes I think are really bad." Well the USA doesn't care if you murdered someone or committed certain kinds of white collar fraud, or even something more mundane, all are felonies and you don't get to vote after. You're a criminal in all circumstances. Hence my point that your common sense doesn't map well onto an actual society, or at least not this one.
> We disagree, dude. It's no reason to get emotional.
This is the extraordinary privilege you live with. Imagine the conversation is discussing sodomy laws in Texas. "who cares, doesn't affect me, and anyway isn't that kinda gross?" You have the privilege to not worry about it, other people are literally fighting for their right to exist.
If you're finding anger in response to your position, why is your response to hand wave it? "Damn bro, calm down." Are you not at all curious why someone would be so passionate about this issue? Because what we're talking about is America's bloodthirsty retributive justice system that's resulted in one of the highest incarceration rates on earth and essentially a continuation of slavery (prison labor, for profit privatized prisons), and you're dispassionately making "common sense" arguments for not only how that's great, but we should do more of it, and by the way you don't care about whatever evidence I show you demonstrating that you're wrong, you just want to continue believing it or whatever. No shit that's infuriating lol.
> When I talk about law abiding citizens I'm talking about people who don't commit crimes that make life drastically shittier for everyone else.
There's plenty of things people do that make life drastically shittier for everyone else, that isn't illegal. Banks making bad investments and crashing the economy in 2008. Sending soldiers to die in foreign countries. Locking up refugees. Lobbying to keep minimum wage low. Torpedoing welfare budgets. Driving gas guzzling vehicles. Operating a fossil fuel company. Rejecting health insurance claims. Addicting someone to alert bubble dopamine hits. Harvesting user data.
Seems common sense to me that destroying the Gulf coast through blatant malpractice is just as bad as punching someone in the face, but nobody went to jail after the BP oil spill.
> Are they perfect deterrents? Of course not. But I've changed my own behavior to avoid punishment, I've seen a million other people do the same, and there's no possible universe in which I could just read some study online and go "wow, I guess punishments don't work to deter crime!"
It's worth pointing out by the way that this is basically a strawman, no study I linked said "we should stop punishing crime," the basic argument is that the best deterrent is certainty of being punished, whereas degree of punishment holds basically no effect. In this context that means the SFPD quiet quitting is having a much larger effect on increase in crime than, say, eliminating cash bail. In any case the other arguments are about actually solving what drives crime more than anything else which is economic disparity: improving that doesn't require halting the punishment of crime, my point is that the call to arms are a distraction towards ineffective solutions.
Btw I forget that some Americans consider "conservative" an insult, I didn't mean that in a name calling way, I meant that in an attempt to accurately describe the political leanings of the position you hold. I maintain that retributive justice is a conservative policy position, and indeed is a favorite of your Republican party. Note also though that Biden is also a conservative by most international perspectives, and sf politicians are mostly centrists or at best liberals (a term which here means "moderate centrist," not "progressive"). So I didn't mean to name call you, sorry.
> I could continue on, and go over the Norway thing and how I believe it's a completely different situation than the US
Norway is different but I don't see why that means the usa can't apply the basic restorative justice principles
> or go over the housing the homeless thing and talk about how expensive that would be in SF
First, housing first advocates seem to be demonstrating that housing the homeless would be cheaper than the current solution of cycling them in and out of jail while wasting police resources on tearing down their shelters. Second, so what it's expensive? We're talking about humans living on the street. Society is only as good as it is for those living in the worse condition it offers.
I admire you for having a clearer understanding of why you post here. I enjoy the discussions as well I think, and maybe I'm driven by a desire to seek truth? I guess throughout this thread I've been hoping people had SOME evidence to justify the retributive justice model they're all touting and seeking further implementation of, because otherwise to me it just seems like people are seeking further cruelty, but I haven't gotten that, just people saying "doesn't it just make sense? Cut off the hands of thieves, that'll teach them!" So maybe that's why I'm so frustrated.
So we have two dudes with common sense disagreements. We need to decide whether we punish thieves by cutting off their hands or by making them make society whole through labor or otherwise while investigating why they felt the need to steal at all. How do we resolve that other than by seeking the truest effective method through study, experimentation, publishing results? "We disagreed so we did research and found the right answer." Well that's basically what I'm saying we as a society should do and it sounds like you're basically saying "despite that effort I still prefer to just believe I'm right."
And a final thing I don't think I'm communicating well is so many things that turn out to be good policy violate "common sense," because we humans are bug ridden. Our cognitive fallacies cause all sorts of incorrect observation and behavior. This is so common in judicial theory. Zero tolerance policies at school: let's come down hard on crime in school! Result: huge expulsion rates, and incentives choosing the worse of bad behaviors, because they're all punished the same. Or, three strike laws. Repeat criminals aren't gonna change, let's just lock them up forever! Result: high rates of recidivism, overcrowded prisons. Criminalizing drugs. Drugs bad, lead to crime, ban them. Result: cartels, mafia. Result of decriminalization: drop in crime AND drug usage, drop in diseases like HIV. Rent control: lock prices, protect low income families. Result: high income families lock down low income rates, market overcorrects when housing comes available, etc.
Basically when I find myself thinking "seems like common sense," I have the opposite reaction to you: I believe our rational facilities have documented flaws and so my first instinct is to apply rigid logic and evidence to check my understanding.
But, I've demonstrated, it's wrong. You're going to vote for things, and build society in such a way, that makes it worse for all of us.
That's probably the most obnoxious thing anybody's said to you in a while but I can't see any way around that fact: my point of view is absolutely correct so far as I have the ability to confirm this. You haven't been able to convince me otherwise (nor are you interested in trying) so I'm safe to assume my point of view is closer to the truth, and my idea (not mine rather but the one I support) of restorative justice is the correct way to build a better society.
You disagree, won't be convinced, won't read evidence contrary to your experience, and want to make the world more like what you think it should be, which will, as per the evidence presented, make it worse. Furthermore since you're not interested in investigative reasoning for certain subjects about which you're convinced you know the truth (my attempt at your words), when the world gets worse as we step further down the path of retributive justice, you won't acknowledge that your ideology is bad, because you've determined for yourself it's correct and won't be convinced otherwise, and will try to implement it even further. With this ideology locked as such I'd say it's not slippery slope fallacy to suggest you may one day find yourself arguing to literally cut off the hands of thieves.
Given these stakes, how could I not be angry? What a frustrating ideology to encounter!
But people don't respond well to anger so I'll say truthfully and earnestly, if you ignore the subject of the conversation and focus only on the logical and ideological framework I think you're applying here, can you see how refusing to consider studies or arguments that challenge your core beliefs can sometimes be problematic? How it can be a recursive and self feeding problem?
But of course, things do go both ways. Part of the reason people like me adopt such dug-in positions is because there's just so much stupid shit and terrible ideas in society that some kind of filter becomes necessary, and it's not always easy to tune. For every legitimate, good-intentioned proposition out there that may contradict common sense, there are another 10 idiotic propositions, and it can become very laborious to look through them all to try to find the good ones. And you have to understand that I don't have my position out of malice, it's moreso a greater concern for the welfare of what I'd call "law abiding citizens" than what I'd call "criminals" (now that we have clarified the definitions). You may disagree with this, but I don't think it makes me evil or malicious.
Now I do want to say one thing. It is not IMPOSSIBLE to convince me of something when my common sense tells me otherwise. If I could see an example of a major US city, very similar to the ones I've lived in, that has successfully been lenient on crime and had a crime decrease, then I would certainly be open to reconsidering my positions. But throughout my life it seems like the opposite has happened. It seems to me in fact that the "compassion not conviction" policies directly caused the increase in crime. SF is a city that seems to agree with me, given the Chesa Boudin recall. NYC is another example, where that city was actually quite safe in the 2000s and only seemingly with De Blasio's compassion-focused administration did it start to deteriorate again. Chicago is another example.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel I'm entirely "refusing to consider" arguments. But when it comes to things that I feel increasingly certain about, it requires an increasingly salient level of proof to convince me otherwise. Like for this particular issue, given that I've been to SF and seen with my own eyes what it's like on the streets there, it would require more than a study to convince me of this, I'd want to go and see the successful policy in action with my own eyes. Because right now my own eyes have seen that the policy was not really that successful, and news stories like the one in the OP reinforce my perception here.
This is kind of off topic, but if I could build my ideal world, I'd begin to do away with cops entirely. Modern technology could enable total, pervasive surveillance of an entire city's public areas. AI could enable automatic monitoring and enforcement. You could build a system of perfect justice, where nobody could get away with anything because it would all be seen. I'd still prefer privacy in the home so that it wouldn't be some hellish dystopia, but otherwise, hell, let's go full Minority Report. The tech is ready and I truly think it would make for a better and safer society, and eliminate lots of problems with human-centric law enforcement such as profiling, brutality, etc. In fact, I'm actually really hopeful that SF tries something like this out. Given the city's impending budget cliff and dwindling police force numbers, they may be faced with a choice between just tolerating increasing lawlessness or starting to use cheap tech to try and keep people safe in other ways.
I think I don't want to line by line you and link bomb, though the temptation is there, but before we go our separate ways I want to somewhat address what you brought up.
I think you're probably right that the usa is a unique environment to apply the reformative justice principles, as you say and for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, such as difficulty of achieving true universal healthcare for example. I think a key reason though is the political divide in America and the outsized ability of various people and organizations to make or break a policy.
This is important in the SF case because my running theory, backed I believe by evidence (I won't link bomb) is that for example a relatively progressive politician like Chesa Boudin can be hamstrung by the cops not making as many arrests. For reasons I can't quite comprehend Boudin seems to be hated by a lot of people, but what I've found is that before he was elected the police union was already putting out hit pieces. In reality, Boudin's prosecution rates were the same or higher than his predecessor. In terms of actually putting people in jail, he was just as happy to do it as any other prosecutor, he just was brought less people to put in jail.
Now maybe he deserved to be recalled for his inability to work with the sfpd, I'm not sure, but that doesn't seem related to the two things in line with reformative justice that he did, eliminating cash bail and pretrial detention. Here's the key: there were iirc one or two high profile instances of a person out of pretrial detention that then committed a heinous crime. This is fodder for yellow journalism and confirmation bias. "See, it doesn't work, and furthermore this is an indictment of reformative justice and progressive politics!"
What is never mentioned is that certain forms of crime, particularly violent forms, did drop during his tenure, and in fact rose again after his recall.
The situation with him also seems fodder for misattribution. How much affect can one DA over the course of, what, two years, really have, in the face of record inflation and a historic pandemic? Property crime rose during his tenure but it rose across America (murder rates did too). I have lots of evidence showing that crime rates correlate more strongly with economic disparity than anything else, so if crime is going up in SF, it's probably because of that, rather than a single polarizing politician.
Basically my point is, yeah, your eyes are seeing things, no way I can deny that, but the news never reports the mundane, and the truth of it is San Francisco is a relatively boring place. There are far more violent cities in America, but for whatever reason the media loves to paste a sensationalist story of every single murder in SF, every single robbery. Your eyes can only see what's put in front of them, and crime stats aren't being put in front of them. Little Rock had 119 murders last year, twice San Francisco's, but the media doesn't tout every single one as either the personal failure of a socialist DA or the collective failure of progressive politics in general, so nobody talks about it.
So that's why I argue so strongly in favor of the boring: awareness of cognitive biases and rhetorical fallacies, research, and statistics, because I don't think the more exciting way of being aware of the world will give you an accurate picture. Maybe the job of people like me is to find ways to get this information in front of people that doesn't involve insulting them on internet forums lol
In any case having previously lived in SF I feel like what you're seeing on the streets there is less to do with murderers and more to do with the outsized homeless population and lack of public restrooms. I suppose the car break-ins thing is bad but from what I've read the sfpd is neither defunded nor under staffed (compared to cities with worse or more crime), so I'm not sure what's preventing them from making arrests? My pet theory is they're just kinda shit at their jobs, maybe on purpose. Plenty of stories on here of people showing them GPS tracking for a stolen bike and them shrugging their shoulders.
As for your ideal world, that certainly agrees with the evidence that certainty of punishment is the best deterrent (though deterrence is not necessarily the best way to reduce crime). Having though lived in a pervasive surveillance police state (the PRC) I hesitate to throw my weight behind it. Then again Taiwan has somewhat pervasive surveillance and I haven't found any privacy issues as a result, perhaps because the digital minister is an advocate for privacy, or maybe because much of the surveillance is from private businesses on their stores. There's other considerations with the AI thing such as AI can fail to face recognize on black people more frequently than white depending on the model which could deepen inequalities of the application of justice in the USA. Also such a tool, if built with good intentions, could be abused upon the election of some kind of fascist, and used to target political enemies. In general I'm on board with ideas that reduce brutality and profiling.
I will drop only one link, a quick fact checking of various crime theories in San Francisco, from I think about 2 years ago now https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che...
Anyway my final question I think is: if you were willing to grant there might be something to my idea that the truth may be more hidden away in statistics and studies, is there a way to bring that truth "before the eyes" of a million people all who have their own things they're worrying about?
Yet there's so many more people incarcerated in the US for such long periods of time than in most other countries. "Life without parole" basically doesn't really exist in Europe.
> Here's the thing - I do have evidence. But it's the evidence I've seen with my own eyes, not something I've read in some paper or study. My evidence is (I see no other way to put it than to be frank) just common sense. I've met plenty of people in my life. I've seen humans and I know how humans behave
Straight out of a Trump speech :)