San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic? • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#201

Post by wonderwonder » Wed, May 31, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #196

wonderwonder wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was indeed a pandemic. Are you saying that is what caused homicide rates to spike amongst African Americans and not Caucasians? Has the homicide rate gone down since then? I would posit that police withdrew from high crime / predominantly African American areas and in the void that was created, violence increased. Logically if there is a high crime area and you remove police enforcement from it, then crime will…

That's both speculative and illogical. Police don't prevent crime. They can only arrest after the fact. And that's only if they catch them. And police did not withdraw from anywhere. No city defunded police. The defund movement was predicated on the fact that police are ineffective at preventing crime. That economics plays a much bigger role. Employment in places like NYC took much longer to recover because so many j…

Police and empowered prosecutors prevent crime. Remove a criminal from society and they will not commit a crime again.

The broken window theory is true, arrest and prosecute minor crimes to prevent larger ones.

Perfect example is Jordan Neely who was killed in NYC. He was arrested 40+ times for assault and the prosecutor kept letting him out to continue to terrorize the population. Eventually it ended the only way it could; with his death. Removing him from society would have kept him alive and resulted in a child not being traumatized after an attempted kidnapping and an old lady would not have had her face broken. Daniel Penny was simply the end result of ineffective criminal justice policies.

Cops are an important part of the solution but they can only do so much without a DA willing to prosecute and incarcerate.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#202

Post by forgetfulness » Wed, May 31, 2023, 9:46 PM UTC

bluefishinit wrote: post #151

forgetfulness wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the newer generations that wouldn't be the subject of this under social programs will come under the predation and oppression of those who took on the path of violence if you don't offer them protection; you can't just picture this as poor people stealing luxury goods from tech bros, there's a reason why people who are subject to these things are often friendly to tough-on-crime policies.

I disagree, it was tough-on-crime policies, specifically the war on drugs and discriminatory policing that caused the problems we have today. Continuing these policies will only compound the issues.

I'm not saying that tough-on-crime policies are the right answer, I'm saying that things like the three-strikes-law enjoyed support from communities afflicted by crime because they are the primary victims of criminals. They will want solace from criminals who are threatening them today, not mere promises that their communities will be safer 20 years from now.

Providing security is one of the State's most basic functions and people will demand it.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#203

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #188

Manuel_D wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus, punishing breakage of the rules more severely would lead to fewer people breaking the rules. As per your reasoning, to reduce crime we have to make breaking the rules more punishing than abiding by them.

If you go far enough down that path, you get a world where people break them anyway and get better at covering up and more people look the other way. Prohibition did not put a stop to people drinking. It just helped make organized crime rich and powerful as ordinary people continued to drink, didn't want to die from bathtub gin being poisonous and crime lords were the only reliable source of safe alcohol.

Prohibition created a black market, off of which criminals stood to profit. By comparison, locking people up who break into cars or serially shoplift does not create a black market.

And on a pedantic note, during prohibition drinking dropped to about 30% of it's pre-prohibition levels. Even after the repeal of prohibition was around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels [1].

1. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675...

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#204

Post by joshcsimmons » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:17 PM UTC

Flagged for unpopularity and truth?

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#205

Post by JamesBarney » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #58

JamesBarney wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity This is a big assumption. Do you have anything that backs this up? I'd be incredibly surprised if the FED jacked up interest rates, the Federal government cut expenditures or increased taxes to curb inflation we'd see a large fall in crime.

What if we built a ton of free and low-cost housing, created a public healthcare system and made it easier for struggling people to get welfare assistance for staples like food and clothing?

> What if we built a ton of free and low-cost housing?

Lets imagine homeless people are 3x more likely to commit a crime than the housed. Currently 1 in 800 people are homeless. If you eliminated the homelessness problem you'd end up with less than an even 1% reduction in crime.

> Created a public healthcare system?

Most crime is committed by young people who have very limited healthcare needs.

> made it easier for struggling people to get welfare assistance for staples like food and clothing

I was homeless for a while, and even among the homeless most could eat and were clothed. Such a small % of the population in the U.S. doesn't haven't enough food or clothing that making sure they did couldn't possible drive much of a reduction in crime.

Those might all be nice things for a society to provide, but it isn't going to reduce the crime rate.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#206

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #46

sylens wrote: post #29

You're seeing this everywhere. Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on - although the problem may be worse in San Francisco. Cities are struggling in the post-pandemic era as the rising cost of living due to inflation in food and other essentials has driven more criminal activity, mostly around theft. This is happening at the same time where many cities are also trying more progressive, reform-based approaches to policing a…

A lot of city residents need to come to terms with the fact that some of these progressive criminal justice reforms may need to be adjusted a bit, given that we now have years of evidence of their effects. And/or: We need to make affordable housing available, make a car-optional lifestyle more viable, etc. "The beatings shall continue until morale improves" isn't an effective approach to anything, especially since if…

> We need to make affordable housing available, make a car-optional lifestyle more viable, etc.

Yes, but that won't solve all our problems. We have to distribute out the hot places to live, we can never make enough affordable housing if everyone wants to live in a few select cities.

Having lived in Europe, I don't thing they have figured it out either (except for the car-optional lifestyle).

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#207

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

shockeychap wrote: post #194

scoofy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about people looking at $1,500+/month rent with multiple roommates... if they're lucky, for the rest of their lives. That is not offering people a future. There is no viable path to prosperity. There is no path for lower-class folks to achieve a private residence with a spouse. When these people increase productivity, rents will capture that wealth. Why should people play by these rules? A tiny condo in…

I don't disagree that SF has a major problem with housing affordability. I also think that problem was self-imposed by the use of restrictive zoning and ordinances that made it nearly impossible to construct high-density housing of any kind. (Look at Bob Tillman's struggle as one example.) I also think this conduct by state and local governments are hypocritical, odious, and disgusting. That said, I also don't see ho…

SF is already the second most dense city in the USA. Sure making SF as dense as Manhattan will make SF as cheap as Manhattan, but that be progress?

Increasing supply only works if demand is fixed. But...what if increasing supply only induces more demand? Tokyo is the only city doing well in this category, since they have a lull in demand due to demographics.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#208

Post by DoreenMichele » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:48 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #203

DoreenMichele wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go far enough down that path, you get a world where people break them anyway and get better at covering up and more people look the other way. Prohibition did not put a stop to people drinking. It just helped make organized crime rich and powerful as ordinary people continued to drink, didn't want to die from bathtub gin being poisonous and crime lords were the only reliable source of safe alcohol.

Prohibition created a black market, off of which criminals stood to profit. By comparison, locking people up who break into cars or serially shoplift does not create a black market. And on a pedantic note, during prohibition drinking dropped to about 30% of it's pre-prohibition levels. Even after the repeal of prohibition was around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels [1]. 1. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_pa…

The world currently has some serious problems that aren't going to be fixed by punishing people hardest hit by that fact. White collar criminals often hurt more people and to a greater degree and tend to be coddled in comparison.

There is an element of classism here to which I object. I'm well aware some people just like hurting others and will do so on any excuse.

I did say "and/or" and every single reply here sounds like no one heard that, as if I started my comment with something like "You meanie face! Instead of punishing people who are clearly victims of the system, we should help them!"

That framing doesn't exist and I think it's a waste of my time to continue to engage people who seem to be misreading my initial comment.

Thank you for the pedantic note. I didn't previously know that. (It doesn't impact my point, for the record.)

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#209

Post by DoreenMichele » Wed, May 31, 2023, 10:54 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #206

DoreenMichele wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of city residents need to come to terms with the fact that some of these progressive criminal justice reforms may need to be adjusted a bit, given that we now have years of evidence of their effects. And/or: We need to make affordable housing available, make a car-optional lifestyle more viable, etc. "The beatings shall continue until morale improves" isn't an effective approach to anything, especially since if…

> We need to make affordable housing available, make a car-optional lifestyle more viable, etc. Yes, but that won't solve all our problems. We have to distribute out the hot places to live, we can never make enough affordable housing if everyone wants to live in a few select cities. Having lived in Europe, I don't thing they have figured it out either (except for the car-optional lifestyle).

If you solved all our problems, they would magically be replaced by new ones.

"Oh, I'm so bored. It is a tragedy!"

"My orgasms aren't as fantastic as porn movies imply everyone else has. It's not fair! Whatever shall I do?"

Etc.

But, I mean, some kinds of problems are better to have than others.

Re: San Francisco: An Elitist Bubble Ignoring a Crime Epidemic?

#210

Post by bluefishinit » Wed, May 31, 2023, 11:02 PM UTC

forgetfulness wrote: post #202

bluefishinit wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, it was tough-on-crime policies, specifically the war on drugs and discriminatory policing that caused the problems we have today. Continuing these policies will only compound the issues.

I'm not saying that tough-on-crime policies are the right answer, I'm saying that things like the three-strikes-law enjoyed support from communities afflicted by crime because they are the primary victims of criminals. They will want solace from criminals who are threatening them today, not mere promises that their communities will be safer 20 years from now. Providing security is one of the State's most basic functi…

> They will want solace from criminals who are threatening them today, not mere promises that their communities will be safer 20 years from now.

Tough on crime polices mean that all of our communities will be less safe 20 years from now, we know this because we can look back 20 years, 20 years before that and so on.

The only real way out of this is to address the structural inequalities that we have in the US, but that sadly seems unlikely to happen since the existing system is designed to put a stop to it.

Being "tough on crime" is like drinking booze to cure depression. It's only going to make things worse. It doesn't address any of the root causes of the issues at hand.