A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
The reason why punishment does not deter crime is because people who commit crimes usually do so because they are out of options, or were not given other options to begin with. So if you increase the severity of the punishment, you are merely making it more stressful for the people to commit the crimes, rather than deterring them.
That's my take. And I don't have a damn criminology degree to come up with that. (Not to say it's necessarily true, but it rings true to me.)
You lessen crime by eliminating poverty. That part is correct. The other parts of this meme are more like incidental details what could happen when a society is richer, not the cause.
"Arrgh that would be communism, so we can't allow that" - 🤡
Yes, we did (The Netherlands). It really works! But sadly policies are changing, heading more towards the American system with privatization, where the gap between the rich 1% and the rest is increasing rapidly. But at least we're still far away from the current American collapse.
There is absolutely a direct correlation between crime and poverty.
It's just here in America we don't care about that because crime is business.
Americans: look north you twits.
Gun violence goes hand to hand with poverty.
poverty goes up, gun violence goes up
Abolish laws. Then crime will instantly disappear. 🥴
what's the reasoning ?
Can't commit crime if nothing is a crime. 🙂↕️
Legalize it! 🌿
ok
But if crime declined, the poor private prison corporations would lose money, and that's not a good thing. They wouldn't be able to give judges kickbacks to sentence lesser crimes! Please, think of the poor private prison corporations!
/s in case the sarcasm isn't abundantly clear.
I have lived in 4 states that called out prison income and highlighted the deficit on prison labor as a problem. The sarcasm and the callout are necessary.
California especially they litterally put they're lives on the line for your payout. And it still wasn't a sure thing.
The state is not entitled to the labor of prisoners, especially those that are increasingly political in nature. This apply's equally to California, Texas, Missouri, and New York.
I got a degree in criminology about 25 years ago and can confirm that there was no dispute in the science at that time that this was the way to reduce crime.
Everything else had been tried and tried again and proven not to work. It was around that time that my (then) field realized that the DARE program increased drug use.
It was almost 25 years after the St. Louis (maybe wrong city, it's been a while) Crime and Control study proved that flooding the streets with more police officers only pushed crime into other neighborhoods.
When I studied, it was almost a joke to read new research coming out, because every serious study was just confirming what everyone knew. Guest lecturers would come in to talk about their latest theories in criminology. and, it was basically everyone just sitting around saying oh yeah that's obvious. The field has peaked, and it was up to society then to catch up.
We looked at three strike's laws, truth and sentencing laws, asset forfeiture laws, mandatory minimums, and every time we found that these policies increase violent crime. They further fracture communities and destroy families at the generational level.
It may not be intuitive to think that, but would a little thought, a little reflection, it is hard to say that this would not be the obvious result.
The methods to reducing and ending recidivism have been well known to science. People who talk about harsh law enforcement and punitive corrections are either ignorant, emotional blowhards, or not serious about reducing crime.
We have in America a well-established cat and mouse model of policing. And indeed it does Trace its history to slave patrols, a reactionary force of violence, dispatched into the community to capture offenders. The entire model does absolutely nothing to prevent future crimes from occurring.
Maybe they catch some guy who's a serial offender, and get him off the streets. And they call that a win. But until the root causes of crime are addressed, all they're doing is playing serial offender whack-a-mole; the next one is just going to pop right up. And maybe they'll say, oh sure, that's because we have a "catch and release" system.
Well, if we literally did nothing at all to stop crime, and totally abolished the concept of a police force, the science is absolutely clear that most people are going to age out of crime by the time they turn 25, and the rest, save for a few people who are likely mentally disabled, will age out by the time they hit 35. But instead, we're kicking down doors and locking people out in cage for decades on end, making sure that their families are broken and locked in a cycle of poverty and trauma, and we end up sometimes with three generations of men sharing a prison together.
And while we're on the subject of prison, the science is also absolutely clear that the way to reduce recidivism to almost nothing is to provide good health care, good mental health care, and to teach people marketable skills, all in a safe environment. When I got my degree, the field was shifting to a program evaluation approach, because we had figured out what programs we needed to have, and the only thing left to do was to fine-tune those programs to get the most out of them.
But then 4 years would go by, or 8 years would go by, and some new tough-on-crime politician would come and wonder why we're spending so much money to hold people in a cage, and they'd start cutting the programs.
And despite that, and despite the emotional reactionaries who just want to see bad guys be treated badly to make themselves feel better about crime, virtually every type of crime is the lowest it's ever been in my lifetime.
First, thanks for taking the time to do that writeup!
Second - do you happen to have links to any likely sources that would present that info in a digestible manner? I'm not asking this to challenge you, I'm asking so I have linkable references in future discussion.
Thanks!
Thanks for sharing your experience
This is why we say "the cruelty is the point". As you note, these are not serious people trying to reduce crime. They are straight up lying about their goals, possibly even to themselves. The whole mindset is against the idea that crime is something that even can be reduced; rather, "bad people" will always do "bad things", and it's up to "powerful men" to protect the rest of society from them. It is rooted in a deeply authoritarian mindset that puts them as one of the "powerful men". If you were to reduce crime, how can they prove that they're one of the "powerful men"?
This is a spectacular post
To add to that, it's the same with homelessness. Every 1-4 years, architecture students and urban planning students are asked to do projects on helping to house the homeless or something similar. Every time, they come up with innovative and unique ways to handle it. People forget about and/or realize that no one will try any of them. Repeat.
Thank you for this great insight and information.
I can’t find the podcast. Maybe someone else can post an article about this:
Several years ago, I listened to a podcast that interviewed a man in Chicago who was conducting a study. His team found people with a criminal history(I think maybe drug dealers?) and tell them they’ll get $1000 a month. No strings attached.
There were a few who didn’t use the money well, but most quit crime/dealing drugs entirely. They found steady work and some went back to school.
All they needed was an opportunity to feel financially safe, feed their kids, and pay rent.
Edit: I think I found it? Here’s an article on it. Some of my facts were wrong, but the idea was right overall.
The article also mentions another called the Stock Economic Empowerment Demonstration.
I’m not sure which I heard about but I suspect the interview was with Richard Wallace who is mentioned in the article. Some of his talking points sounded familiar.
They've been trying it across the world, it's called Universal Basic Income. It's been proven mostly successful every time.
Here's an old article about the US: https://mashable.com/article/cities-with-universal-basic-income-guaranteed-income-programs
Yeah! I wanted to specifically call out the study on UBI with formerly incarcerated people.
I know a lot of pushback on UBI is that it will make people lazy, or emboldened criminals. It has the exact opposite effect.
I believe that's manufactured pushback tbh. People who are overworked might think it would make themselves lazy. At first, maybe? To get your thoughts in order, it might look lazy. But most people who feel safe with a steady income want to be productive.
I was talking about it with my GF over breakfast. She's being worked to the bone, waking up in pain etc. and thought about alternatives.
She had the idea of a cat-bookstore-library-café. Imagine being able to sit down with a nice [beverage of your choice], read a good book, have a curious kitten climb onto your lap... Sure, it wouldn't be for everyone and probably too expensive to run at a profit, but it might be possible with UBI.
And she'd still want to work her other job part-time too, just not full time anymore. She'd still be contributing, just in a different way.
They don't want less crime they want more so they can exert force over the population
Won't happen in the United States. We're headed hard in the opposite direction. And the changes taking place right now will effectively make it impossible going forward.
Buy a gun. Protect yourself. Things are about to get real dark. There are about to be a lot more desperate people in this society.
I think you're right about where the US is headed, but only idiots think having guns will save them from thugs with more guns, let alone a squad of well trained soldiers.
Plenty of resistance movements caused problems for the nazis. You can't fight them in an open battlefield but you can assassinate leaders. They didn't manage to kill Hitler but some others were assassinated. Heydrich for example.
Probably a bigger point is that you can't beat fascism with an individualistic approach to resistance.
They don't want to lessen crime, not really anyway.
They want to increase prison labor capacity by arresting and charging more people
Americans maybe. There's other countries that don't have legal slavery.
People who do try that get demonized as Enemies of Freedom. But it's funny how much more free it feels when you don't worry about medical bills making you homeless etc.
If people have nothing to lose, they're gonna act like they have nothing to lose...
Like, it's basic psychology. Resource scarcity changes how our brains work, it's literally Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Oh man, most of those were in place during the so called "golden age" of America. Maybe this is what the red hats have been fighting for all this time! /s
Yeah, but by doing all that you are oppressing the oppression which the lack of those very things makes so much easier, do you ever think about that??
No, you don't, because you only think of your face and never how the boot on it feels.
/s
UBI on top of universal healthcare is far better happiness promotion, violence elimination, than all of the non-health proposals.
public housing is always rationed, and usually ghetoization. It is rarely implemented as government funded abundance of housing that is small to be affordable, and in competition to private scarce supply that maximizes profits and lobbying power to keep housing scarce. Promoting housing abundance along with UBI is path for zero cost government programs where market prices of homes sold cover costs.
strong unions is concerned with high paying jobs for union members, at higher priority than expanding union membership. Less employment. UBI provides universal labour bargaining power including strike pay for organized labour. The freedom to say no and survive is a freedom that is far more important than coercion of companies to support labour unions? or just cheering on labour organization movements.
universal childcare is usually proposed as an institutional/licensed program designed to provide full time employment at living wage levels. UBI empowers people to both pay for childcare, but also be happy to look after fellow parents kids on a rotating basis for people empowered to choose 4 day workweeks, or lets a granny be happy to supplement UBI with a few hours of babysitting without needing to create a giant empire to achieve full time job creation scheme. Motivation for universal childcare is that "bureaucratic tax funded worker empire" with incidental benefits to parents.
free college is necessarily a rationed service. Affordable college with UBI is a pathway for people qualified for college, and who appreciate value over alternative opportunies they could choose instead of college if value is not there, is still a choice most qualified young people would make. Importantly for UBI, young teens can have hope that affording college gives them a future... a reason to study and be engaged in school.
