To me it looks like a mythical belief system on the Left that the "root causes" of crime just happen to be the non-crime things that people on the Left already don't like -- economic inequality, racism, lack of health care or housing or child care, etc. To address crime, people on the Left want to spend more money on all the things they already wanted to spend more money on.
Whereas people on the Right want to address crime by doing the things they already wanted to do, such as having prayer in school, making recreational drugs illegal, giving tax credits to families with children, and locking up poor nonwhite males.
Maybe crime isn't something we fix by doing the stuff we already wanted to do. Maybe crime is fixed via credible deterrence, which requires visible enforcement and convincing people that they will be caught and punished if they violate the law. As for the people who continue to commit crimes despite repeatedly being caught and punished -- we have to keep those people locked up.
I think the "root cause" of crime is that we make stuff illegal that people still want to do, so to stop them from doing it we have to make it more costly for them. The idea that people steal only because they're poor makes no sense, there's plenty of rich people who steal.
I agree we should be careful about confirmation bias. However, the correlation between strong social safety nets and lower crime rates isn't ideological - it's demonstrated across multiple societies. Why would crime rates be lower in countries like Norway, Denmark, or Finland where comprehensive social programmes are much better funded and more easily available dramatically lower crime and incarceration rates if there was no connection?
If harsh punishment and surveillance were effective deterrents, wouldn't the US - with the world's highest incarceration rate and massive police budgets - have the lowest crime rates? Yet we see the opposite. Countries with more rehabilitative approaches and stronger social support generally have lower recidivism rates.
You make a fair observation about wealthy people also committing crimes. However, there's a crucial difference - the wealthy typically commit different types of crimes (fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion) and face far fewer consequences. Isn't it telling that wage theft by employers dwarfs all other forms of theft combined, yet rarely results in criminal charges?
The real question might be: what kind of society do we want to build? One based on punishment and control, or one that ensures everyone's basic needs are met and addresses the conditions that make crime seem necessary or appealing to begin with? The evidence suggests the latter is not only more humane but more effective.
I think there’s value in comparing and contrasting cultures to figure out why one might have more or less crime than another. But we should avoid cherry picking the comparisons. Singapore has very low crime also, and it is definitely not a model social democracy.
What I hope for the Left is to avoid proposing solutions that take money away from law enforcement while crime rates are still high, to fund long term solutions that — if they work — could take a generation or longer to percolate throughout society. We can do both, we can enforce our laws with determination, while also building a more fair future society.
"Singapore has very low crime also, and it is definitely not a model social democracy."
Maybe not a model social democracy, but they still have strong social welfare provisions, similar to those you find in many European countries:
* About 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing (HDB flats) built by the government.
* The government heavily subsidizes healthcare through a mixed financing system including a national health insurance (MediShield) and safety net for the poor (Medifund).
* Heavy government subsidies for education at all levels, and heavily subsidised and well-maintained public transportation.
Also, I think the evidence shows that programmes which exchange mental health and social services professionals for appropriate first response situations instead of police show positive results very quickly, and they are usually cheaper.
ACLU of Massachusetts says that it IS legal to film police in public, by the way. I think that part of the infographic is quite outdated, but it’s otherwise good.
This is a good collection. I can’t share the image in a comment here, but my favorite is a photo of a woman with the following written on a sign: “WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE TRAINED COPS CAN PANIC & ACT ON IMPULSE BUT UNTRAINED CIVILIANS MUST REMAIN CALM W/A GUN IN THEIR FACE”
Crime prevention starts decades before the crime, all the way back to early childhood assessments and interventions that is your first line of defence, the police thats your last line of defence a sad testimony to society's lack of empathy and support for one another....
"The question isn't whether we need public safety - of course we do. "
Okay, so how do we achieve improved public safety with these various ACAB memes? Because I'm not seeing any proposed solutions there, just a lot of name-calling and bitching about the cops. That's all fine and good, but it won't solve shit.
The memes draw attention to the failings of policing, but - as you point out - don't focus much on solutions.
However, a few of the memes do point out the fact that addressing the causes of anti-social behaviour is far more effective (in reducing such 'crime' and costs) than spending money and resources on policing:
* 'crime prevention starts with funding social programs and creating opportunity'
* 'allocate adequate funds and resources to mental health services, liveable wages, food security and all other societal factors which facilitate the 'crimes'
* 'You lessen crime by eliminating poverty. You lessen crime with universal healthcare, public housing, strong unions, high wages, universal childcare, and free college. You lessen violence by creating happy, healthy communities that aren't fighting over material resources.'
* 'that money could be invested into the communities instead.'
As to solutions that replace the police completely that will be the subject of a future article I've drafted that I'll post in a few weeks. Suffice it to say there are many alternatives that have worked and are working now.
Exactly this "Real crime prevention, as many experts note, comes from addressing root causes: poverty, lack of healthcare, housing insecurity, and limited opportunities. When communities have their basic needs met, crime rates naturally decrease."
This piece is intended to be simple: it is a collection of quotes, observations, and some questions regarding the ways in which policing fails or frustrates justice.
It is not meant to be a detailed comprehensive treatment of the negatives of policing, but it does show many of the frustrations and objections that people have to that institution.
However, I’m not sure how that makes in laughable. Could you please enlighten us?
To me it looks like a mythical belief system on the Left that the "root causes" of crime just happen to be the non-crime things that people on the Left already don't like -- economic inequality, racism, lack of health care or housing or child care, etc. To address crime, people on the Left want to spend more money on all the things they already wanted to spend more money on.
Whereas people on the Right want to address crime by doing the things they already wanted to do, such as having prayer in school, making recreational drugs illegal, giving tax credits to families with children, and locking up poor nonwhite males.
Maybe crime isn't something we fix by doing the stuff we already wanted to do. Maybe crime is fixed via credible deterrence, which requires visible enforcement and convincing people that they will be caught and punished if they violate the law. As for the people who continue to commit crimes despite repeatedly being caught and punished -- we have to keep those people locked up.
I think the "root cause" of crime is that we make stuff illegal that people still want to do, so to stop them from doing it we have to make it more costly for them. The idea that people steal only because they're poor makes no sense, there's plenty of rich people who steal.
I agree we should be careful about confirmation bias. However, the correlation between strong social safety nets and lower crime rates isn't ideological - it's demonstrated across multiple societies. Why would crime rates be lower in countries like Norway, Denmark, or Finland where comprehensive social programmes are much better funded and more easily available dramatically lower crime and incarceration rates if there was no connection?
If harsh punishment and surveillance were effective deterrents, wouldn't the US - with the world's highest incarceration rate and massive police budgets - have the lowest crime rates? Yet we see the opposite. Countries with more rehabilitative approaches and stronger social support generally have lower recidivism rates.
You make a fair observation about wealthy people also committing crimes. However, there's a crucial difference - the wealthy typically commit different types of crimes (fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion) and face far fewer consequences. Isn't it telling that wage theft by employers dwarfs all other forms of theft combined, yet rarely results in criminal charges?
The real question might be: what kind of society do we want to build? One based on punishment and control, or one that ensures everyone's basic needs are met and addresses the conditions that make crime seem necessary or appealing to begin with? The evidence suggests the latter is not only more humane but more effective.
I think there’s value in comparing and contrasting cultures to figure out why one might have more or less crime than another. But we should avoid cherry picking the comparisons. Singapore has very low crime also, and it is definitely not a model social democracy.
What I hope for the Left is to avoid proposing solutions that take money away from law enforcement while crime rates are still high, to fund long term solutions that — if they work — could take a generation or longer to percolate throughout society. We can do both, we can enforce our laws with determination, while also building a more fair future society.
"Singapore has very low crime also, and it is definitely not a model social democracy."
Maybe not a model social democracy, but they still have strong social welfare provisions, similar to those you find in many European countries:
* About 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing (HDB flats) built by the government.
* The government heavily subsidizes healthcare through a mixed financing system including a national health insurance (MediShield) and safety net for the poor (Medifund).
* Heavy government subsidies for education at all levels, and heavily subsidised and well-maintained public transportation.
Also, I think the evidence shows that programmes which exchange mental health and social services professionals for appropriate first response situations instead of police show positive results very quickly, and they are usually cheaper.
ACLU of Massachusetts says that it IS legal to film police in public, by the way. I think that part of the infographic is quite outdated, but it’s otherwise good.
This is a good collection. I can’t share the image in a comment here, but my favorite is a photo of a woman with the following written on a sign: “WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE TRAINED COPS CAN PANIC & ACT ON IMPULSE BUT UNTRAINED CIVILIANS MUST REMAIN CALM W/A GUN IN THEIR FACE”
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for the update - I’ll add a correction.
Crime prevention starts decades before the crime, all the way back to early childhood assessments and interventions that is your first line of defence, the police thats your last line of defence a sad testimony to society's lack of empathy and support for one another....
It is NOT illegal to film police in Illinois.
Thanks for the update - I’ll add a correction.
"The question isn't whether we need public safety - of course we do. "
Okay, so how do we achieve improved public safety with these various ACAB memes? Because I'm not seeing any proposed solutions there, just a lot of name-calling and bitching about the cops. That's all fine and good, but it won't solve shit.
The memes draw attention to the failings of policing, but - as you point out - don't focus much on solutions.
However, a few of the memes do point out the fact that addressing the causes of anti-social behaviour is far more effective (in reducing such 'crime' and costs) than spending money and resources on policing:
* 'crime prevention starts with funding social programs and creating opportunity'
* 'allocate adequate funds and resources to mental health services, liveable wages, food security and all other societal factors which facilitate the 'crimes'
* 'You lessen crime by eliminating poverty. You lessen crime with universal healthcare, public housing, strong unions, high wages, universal childcare, and free college. You lessen violence by creating happy, healthy communities that aren't fighting over material resources.'
* 'that money could be invested into the communities instead.'
As to solutions that replace the police completely that will be the subject of a future article I've drafted that I'll post in a few weeks. Suffice it to say there are many alternatives that have worked and are working now.
So Cop City is not the answer to crime?
Exactly this "Real crime prevention, as many experts note, comes from addressing root causes: poverty, lack of healthcare, housing insecurity, and limited opportunities. When communities have their basic needs met, crime rates naturally decrease."
This piece is intended to be simple: it is a collection of quotes, observations, and some questions regarding the ways in which policing fails or frustrates justice.
It is not meant to be a detailed comprehensive treatment of the negatives of policing, but it does show many of the frustrations and objections that people have to that institution.
However, I’m not sure how that makes in laughable. Could you please enlighten us?