Hacker News Reader

Comment by citizenpaul | Hacker News Reader

>stop glorifying cowardice

I mostly agree. I don't think its cowardice most of the time though. Its that laws now favor criminals if you attempt to do anything yourself. Its become public policy that "rich" people buying things can simply absorb the loss and the police don't even have to do anything because no one bothers to report it. The police win because crime stats go down, thiefs win because they get the goods, the victim absorbs all the cost and if they try to do anything the victim goes to jail for whatever charges that made the police have to get up and work.

View on HN

Can I get a source on any of these claims?

Tbf, I am generally anti-police in the sense that they’re pretty institutionally bad at preventing or deterring crime in the current model, but I don’t really understand the argument you’re making here

Not a source (and I'm also not GP), but 'duty to retreat' laws exist even in many states in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

Just google property crime + [any largeish US city] + reddit and youll find dozens of anecdotal stories from citizens.

Property crime seems to have essentially become a problem dealt with exclusively by citizens. Hell, SPD wouldnt even do anything to help when my car was stolen a few years ago. I got a call from the bar where it was abandoned and had to have it towed myself.

I think the argument GP was making was that of incentives. Police department have essentially zero incentive to devote time+manpower to petty theft or property crime, so the easiest solution is to simply encourage citizens to not 'resist' so to speak. If you get mugged, its a lot easier to deal with as a police officer if you simply hand them your wallet, vs starting a fist/knife/gun fight in the streets.

I don't agree with citizenpaul

But I do know if you're a homeless drug addict and you commit a crime that makes the cops throw you in jail - that's three meals a day, somewhere warm to sleep, and no lost income because you didn't have any income.

Whereas if you're a member of the middle class and you commit the same crime and get thrown in the same jail? Mucho lost income, you can't pay your mortgage, you get fired for not showing up at work, and as a convict your employment prospects become much, much worse.

So a "rational" member of the middle class might opt not to fight a homeless drug addict over $500 simply because they've got a lot more to lose.

>that's three meals a day, somewhere warm to sleep

I don't know why people always parrot this like a fact. Plenty of prisons serve only two woefully inadequate meals a day (like, Fyre festival sandwich levels of inadequate) and prisons generally have atrocious climate control. In the southern states, they don't have air conditioning and it gets genuinely dangerous for the prisoners.

Some jurisdictions give the Warden a budget for feeding the prisoners, and any dollar they don't spend, they get to KEEP. This predictably results in malnourished prisoners, but Americans do not have the empathy to care most of the time.

> any dollar they don't spend, they get to KEEP

I'd love a source on that.

I’ll give you a too-big-to-be-illegal example. Geogroup, now named CoreCivic. It’s the largest owner of private prisons and jails in the US. They, along with other private prison corporations, engage in far more corruption than just pocketing the extra change though. They actively lobby legislators for mandatory minimum sentences and other law changes so that America can continue to be a world leader in the highest percentage of prisoners per capita.

Their 2024 revenue was $2B.

> Its that laws now favor criminals if you attempt to do anything yourself.

That just reads like a general "this is why I'm a coward" excuse.

Also what you want is spelled "It's".

It’s a good excuse because it’s a fair description of why cowardice is rational in many western legal contexts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com