Tbh solving this is one of the actual use cases for things like flock cameras.
Simply bolting things down harder is still defeated by a battery powered grinder.
Simply bolting things down harder is still defeated by a battery powered grinder.
I think it's ok to define "survive" as an addict who needs (<-also loosely defined) a fix.
You don't generally commit serious white collar crime, tax fraud or do crypto grifts to survive. For petty street crime, I don't really see any other motivation.
The US tried "tough on crime" approaches, what has it resulted in? 25% of the entire world's prison population and it still has higher crime rates than its peer nations.
That's into the absurdist territory, but it reflects the real pattern of behavior. People do go around committing petty crimes for various reasons.
I think there are many other and better things to try than the repeated failure of trying to catch and punish crimes even more harshly.
Phew, good to hear. Here I thought it would be a hard and complex problem, with lots of unknown unknowns, difficult political compromises, a generation-spanning efforts and many potential solutions with uncertain outcomes, partially contradicting each other.
Instead, we just have to make society better. So, what's step 1?
And if you are still worried about theft in the mean time, you could try looking at wage thefts which has a value greater than all other forms of theft combined.
That would make society better, I agree, but I don't see how that would lead to a reduction in theft, or crime in general.
> And if you are still worried about theft in the mean time, you could try looking at wage thefts […]
I'm not worried about wage theft, no. I am worried about theft of my personal property, though. And I notice that you haven't proposed any credible path to reducing it, beyond an incredibly generic "make society better", whatever that means and however you want to achieve that.
Do we have any sources that people are stealing to survive? What definition of surviving are we using here?
So once you take them off the streets for a couple of years, or decades for the more hardened ones, it's fine. It has an added benefit of breaking criminal networks so the future adepts have no place to fence the stolen goods.
I also think you have no idea how much it costs per prisoner per year.
I also think you have no idea how much harder it is for someone to get a job, housing, a partner, etc after they have a conviction. Or how much whatever life they had falls apart, which includes partners, friends, family. And guess what happens when you strip away all of someone's social connections? They lose that safety net, and are now dependent upon whatever society as whole provides. And in the US we have people saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" non-ironically, not realizing the whole fucking point of that phrase is that recovering from poverty in the US is extremely difficult.
That money is better spent on helping people who are not able to afford basic necessities, because that is why a lot of people commit property crime.
I suggest you actually open up some studies on this subject because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Or just open up a chart reflecting the economy over the decades and compare it with property crime rates.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world by both headcount and percentage of the population. How's that working for us? We have one of the higher property and violent crime rates among developed nations. Far higher than nations where criminals are imprisoned for rehabilitation, not to punish. Things like giving them a cell that looks like a bedroom, not pen in an animal shelter.
Do you have anything to back this up? You think people are stealing because they lack basic necessities? How are you defining this?
The recidivism rate for property crime is higher than violent crime, so it seems plausible that the same is true for theft: https://counciloncj.org/recidivism_report/
In the UK police will ask the value of the property stolen and use that to decide whether to do anything. Low-value is under a few £k.
No, it's actually solved by providing social safety net programs and managing the economy to have entry level accessible jobs that pay a living wage. People steal because they run out of other options. The cost of flock contracts would be far better spent on food pantries, job counseling, emergency housing...
There is nearly zero correlation between the number of police and the amount of crime.
Making the search process easier makes locating stolen stuff becomes more of an office job that’s cheaper to do so the math works out better.
https://www.techspot.com/news/113381-google-ai-told-people-f...
AngryData> No one goes around stealing bikes just because they want to do bad things.
But people go around stealing Flock cameras because they want to do good things.
Sure you can use all number of locks, security bolts, and stripping the bike down yourself every time you leave it, but it’s sucks. You’d rather public spaces just be safe.
If there's lot of theft and you can't store bike at a secure place - have a cheap bike.
not sure the game you want to go with examples
But the rule is good. Can't say I always adhere to it, but used to loose a lot of stuff , and thanks to the rule, many wasn't that expensive.