Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryuhhnn | Hacker News Reader

What do you mean? Crime does not happen in a vacuum. The idea that people steal because it’s fun or commit fraud because they enjoy seeing their victims suffer is not supported by any sort of rigorous sociological or criminological understanding of social deviance. If you want to fix crime, you need to fix the social ills that cause people to turn to crime to begin with. Of course crime prevents people from improving their financial situation, nobody denies that, but the crime itself is not the cause.

View on HN

When Nayib Bukele ignored the "experts" and locked up nearly 2% of El Salvador's population, not only did the homicide rate fall off a cliff—economic growth also increased. (Bukele also worked hard to woo foreign investors, without which this would not have been possible; but those investors only felt confident in investing due to the decrease in crime.)

What do we do if we just don't want to live in that world? What's the plan B?

Someone is going to impose their rules on the rest of us. The only choice we have is who that someone is. "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."

(And yes, not every society has had to go as far as Bukele to acheive prosperity, freedom, and peace. All crooked timber is crooked in its own way, and different populations need different solutions but the basic principle is the same everywhere.)

Nobody should be surprised that removing an entire portion of the population would cause the homicide rate to fall the same way nobody would be surprised that there is less rainfall on a day that has less cloud coverage. This isn’t really addressing my point at all. The point is that crime happens because of a set of conditions. You cannot expect crime to be reduced if you remove the “criminals” without addressing the conditions that made them criminals in the first place. Homicide is not a good example here, a better example would be things like petty crime, vandalism, etc.

>You cannot expect crime to be reduced if you remove the “criminals” without addressing the conditions that made them criminals in the first place.

Unless the creation of criminals is caused by being victimized by criminals. Then that's exactly the solution.

> Nobody should be surprised that removing an entire portion of the population would cause the homicide rate to fall the same way nobody would be surprised that there is less rainfall on a day that has less cloud coverage.

If the homicide rate had fallen by only 2%, I would not have considered it notable. In effectively all societies, the vast majority of serious crimes are committed by a tiny sliver of the population who offend again and again. Deal with that sliver, and everyone else can breathe free.

> In effectively all societies, the vast majority of serious crimes are committed by a tiny sliver of the population who offend again and again.

I agree hence removing that 2% of murderers caused the homicide rate to drop dramatically and not just by 2%. The fact that we are even talking about homicide though is a complete detraction from the original post that is showing how giving people money helps them improve their lives and not rely on crime to sustain themselves. Are you not understanding that the majority of crime that exists in a society is petty crime that doesn’t cause any serious physical harm to others or society at large? Why do you lump murderers into this category?

> the original post that is showing how giving people money helps them improve their lives

To be clear, I'm not arguing against this claim.

> Are you not understanding that the majority of crime that exists in a society is petty crime that doesn’t cause any serious physical harm to others or society at large?

What do you mean by "petty crime?" If it's something like driving 75mph on a 65mph highway, then yes that shouldn't generally merit a harsh legal response. But petty theft, shoplifting, minor vandalism, small-scale drug dealing, school bullying etc make life miserable for people who can't afford to live far away from it. The first-order effects are bad enough, but the countless second-order effects (reduced economic investment, lower consumer spending, having to live in fear every day, can't take the bus to work, etc) are absolutely devastating. And yes, even in the poorest communities, where people are the most desperate, the vast majority still follow the law and don't resort to victimizing others.

> The idea that people steal because it’s fun or commit fraud because they enjoy seeing their victims suffer is not supported by any sort of rigorous sociological or criminological understanding of social deviance

There's been a spate of carjackings after enforcement went down recently where the objective of the teens as young as 13 and 12 stealing cars if to have fun rides and to show off to their friends.

There was a 13 year old girl who was carjacking.

https://midcitydcnews.com/2023/09/29/why-do-kids-carjack/

> “Some of them don’t have the whole criminal mindset; like they’ll do stupid things,” one officer explained, speaking anonymously, “Like they’ll steal a car around the corner and then stop at a 7-11, say ‘Hey, I want something to drink,’ —but [they] stole the car right there.”

> So, the high percentage of youth apprehended for carjacking is likely due to their risky behavior. Yet, the question remains. What is it that motivates kids to carjack?

> One answer is as old as human adolescence. Stealing a car to joyride is a cheap thrill.

> For Thrills > Most of the carjackings are “not done for any motive except just having fun,” said one sergeant, speaking at a public safety walk.

> “I mean they’re not stealing cars to sell parts, they’re just stealing cars to steal cars,” the officer added. Most cars, he pointed, are taken from one part of the city and later found parked in another quadrant.

....

>A 2023 article in “The Annual Review of Criminology” points out that this is not new. Seventy years ago, the majority of motor vehicle thefts reported each year were the work of young males, stated the study, “many of whom did it for thrills.”

Video of teens discussing the (lack of) charges:

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/viral-video-dc-teens-discussing-...

Another story:

https://www.hillrag.com/2023/12/06/carjacking-is-no-big-deal...

> The teen and several accomplices had pulled an Uber driver out of his vehicle and drove away in it. A police pursuit followed, the teens jumped out after driving into a dead-end street, and fled on foot. Shawn “was trying to scramble back into the house,” McGilly recalled. Police arrested the teenager and carted him away.

> Overnight, McGilly researched restorative justice. He was torn. On one hand, he was upset over his foster child’s arrest. On the other, Shawn might finally suffer the consequences of his illegal actions. It could be a new beginning, McGilly hoped.

> The next morning, McGilly got a phone call from the public defender. The teen was being released; all charges dropped, the lawyer said.

> Shawn told his friends how nothing happened after his arrest, McGilly said. Worse, he introduced other kids living in the house, one as young as 13, to the world of carjacking, which his contemporaries refer to as “free cars.”

> “Kids take other kids for joy rides in stolen vehicles, which they call ‘free cars,’ then graduate to teaching them how to carjack. When they got caught, nothing serious happened. So it exploded,” McGilly said. “We’ve had twice as many carjackings in 2023 as last year, and it’s just because more and more kids were being introduced to it.”

And this isn't just a victimless crime, several victis have died, including a doctor that was run over by his own car that a carjacker was stealing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com