I tried Googling "does punishing crime work", and I got results about how some studies show it's ineffective, which is true and relevant - this does not imply that we should not punish crime for some definition of "punish", and I don't get any results about how it's "evil", or "yada yada".
>I think the reason there are no studies proving that punishing crime works, is because it's such a brain-dead obvious conclusion that I'd guess nobody ever felt the NEED to make such a study.
It's pretty easy to imagine how punishment might not have an appreciable effect on certain crimes in certain contexts, so it's confusing to assert that your conclusion is "brain-dead obvious". Punishment as a concept is indeed obvious, but only because it serves as an obvious outlet for our angry emotions, not because it "obviously" works effectively and in all cases.
You're injecting really strongly biased/unthoughtful wording into your opinion, which is a needless distraction.
This is only true if you believe that the purpose of punishment is rehabilitation. Depending on how severe the punishments it absolutely can affect crime rates. This is a very simple problem to solve. Remove the people from the streets. Punish drug dealers with severe, harsh penalties. Keep escalating until it stops. Do you think if we rounded up all the criminals and put them in jail, the crime wouldn't decline? Of course it would. It is only a matter of will and degree of punishment/enforcement.
>This is only true if you believe that the purpose of punishment is rehabilitation
I'm not sure what you mean by this - the purpose of all functions for dealing with crime (which may be called punishment) in civilized society is, in no particular order: 1. To protect people, e.g. by physical separation, 2. To rehabilitate, and 3. To deter (and, unfortunately in many cases, 4. To provide the basic human need to see the wicked punished).
>Depending on how severe the punishments it absolutely can affect crime rates.
That's an understatement! I only said it was true that some studies show punishment is ineffective, and that punishment "might not have an appreciable effect on certain crimes in certain contexts."
>This is a very simple problem to solve. Remove the people from the streets.
I think we should be able to agree that justice is complex in practice, and "remove the people from the streets" is leaving quite a lot unsaid. Maybe you meant that the problem statement is simple, which it is: "SF laws and/or enforcement are failing to keep people safe".
>Do you think if we rounded up all the criminals and put them in jail, the crime wouldn't decline?
This is unrealistic even in cities where enforcement is healthy, but even going along with the hypothetical: The topic was punishment as a deterrent. I.e. how well does the punishment of those people prevent them from doing it again once released, or prevent new people from doing it. Obviously regardless of the answer to that question, we need to separate from the rest of society those people committing violence, menacing, public drug-use, public defecation, etc (how best to keep them separated and rehabilitate/help them if possible is another obvious topic, but not one in the scope of my comments).
My original post was not a defense of SF - it was a criticism of another post that I think was written in a way that damages the conversation. Most of what I've written here is an attempt to clarify my post in light of your interpretation, rather than providing new information. Maybe this is my fault - but I also think you might be making assumptions about the specifics and degrees of my opinion, which is frankly the common thread of dysfunctional conversations everywhere, especially on topics poisoned by politics.
I think part of the problem is that we are not willing to foot the bill to put all the criminals in jail.
On a somewhat quibbling note, I will point out that violating traffic laws makes one a criminal, and I am pretty sure you have exceeded the speed limit.
You probably do not mean to put all the criminals in jail. And that raises the question of which criminals to put in jail which makes it much harder.
Addiction is lifelong so you're going to put drug addicts in jail you would need to use a life sentence. Based on my TV understanding of the penal system, this will not cure the addiction.
Also, if you put all the criminals in jail what you're really doing is providing a fertile breeding ground for criminal education, which is also not very healthy for society assuming you plan to ever let criminals out.
And of course we do also have the escape from movies and Australia as previous investigations of how to best deal with high crime rates
>And that raises the question of which criminals to put in jail which makes it much harder.
Why is this hard? Is there a problem with speeding that is lowering quality of life to the degree that violent, property, drug and homeless loitering is in major cities? Cmon man, we are all smart people here. The manufactured moral dilemmas are such a waste of time.
We can all conceive of hierarchies of crime, and right now unenforcement is the major problem so are we really at risk of jumping to extremes where speeding tickets lands someone in jail for a long time? Now, if speeding results in physical harm or car accidents, then at the very least those breaking them should lose their license. If that becomes an issue, then escalate until the problem is solved to a degree that makes a city a pleasant place to live. Maybe the problem is there are too many competing defintions here for what people think is desirable for a city..but open drug use, homeless/mentally ill squatting on sidewalks and harassing people, un-punished property and violent crime, mass theft at retail businesses etc seem fairly obvious to me maybe you have a different preference and like this stuff.
>Addiction is lifelong so you're going to put drug addicts in jail you would need to use a life sentence.
Yea maybe. I'd rathr have a nice clean city than concern myself with rehabilitation of hard drug users. Getting hooked on this stuff already means one has ruined their own life. Why do we have to allow them to ruin ours too?
Close your heart to sentimentality, or maybe direct that sentimentality to the people doing the right thing, not using drugs and trying to be productive citizens. Where is the empathy for them? This is the major blocker to solving these problems. I feel much worse for the good citizens who have to suffer living around this mess, than anyone addicted to drugs and whose behavior necessitates removing them from society so the rest of us can get on with our lives unomolested.
This mentality of hyper sympathy for what are essentially mindless zombies wreaking havoc (at some point the drugs preclude people from rational thought) is the core of why US cities have become so bad. It may be true that to clean up the streets requires abandoning the aversion to harsh punishments for these and other people. If collectively we cannot cross that chasm, then we're doomed to live in filth that will only get worse.
Thank you. It's astounding to me how difficult it is to argue with some people about this. It's seriously practically matters of basic sanity. Like what kind of bizarro-universe is this where people are trying to argue that people who speed are in the same category of "criminal" with violent drug addicts? I almost don't even know what to say to a response like that. It's practically bad-faith IMO but it's so fucking stupid and somehow such a supported position that I feel the need to fight against it.
The post in question did not do what you are accusing them of. They made a rhetorical statement about the word "criminal" that they even themselves qualify as "quibbling", and go on to demonstrate the usefulness of the quibble as the context for a relevant point.
On the other hand, you are broadly accusing those who disagree with you as stupid and insane.
I think SF is a mess. I don't have insight into how "bad areas" become that way or how best to systemically address them, but I do feel relatively confident in blaming the laws and/or enforcement for a failure to do what is in the system's power to keep people safe from each other and from themselves (to a reasonable extent - I don't expect precognition or magical rehabilitation capabilities). It makes me angry. However, unlike apparently everybody else, I don't consider myself educated on the topic beyond that. In this instance, I am trying to do my tiny part in defending the conversation from the tidal wave of fallacies that come with politically charged and emotional topics.
>I think the reason there are no studies proving that punishing crime works, is because it's such a brain-dead obvious conclusion that I'd guess nobody ever felt the NEED to make such a study.
It's pretty easy to imagine how punishment might not have an appreciable effect on certain crimes in certain contexts, so it's confusing to assert that your conclusion is "brain-dead obvious". Punishment as a concept is indeed obvious, but only because it serves as an obvious outlet for our angry emotions, not because it "obviously" works effectively and in all cases.
You're injecting really strongly biased/unthoughtful wording into your opinion, which is a needless distraction.