Why do we accept crime?

[ParanoiA]

Was going home from a buddy's house last night after a long overdue jam session and as I was leaving he directed me the safest way out of his neighborhood - the "hood" as he calls it. And it is, without a doubt.

 

Now, crime has always been a huge issue with me, so this really insults the hell out of me. Why do we accept this? Why do we accept a crime rate? I should be able to walk down the street of the "hood" at 2 am without a drop of fear. Period.

 

The fact we have such a thing as a "rate", implies we accept crime. Obviously we have to realize the realities of human nature, but what kind of goal are we setting when we accept a certain rate of crime - and our proud of ourselves when it doesn't rise? I don't get it.

 

There were 100 murders in KC last year (actually more, but I don't remember the number) and lawmakers are actually patting themselves on the back for "lowering" the murder rate. Are they nuts? As long as there is a "rate" on murder, we FAILED.

 

How many of our kids have to be raped and killed and put on TV before we demand ZERO violent crime? How long are we going to alter our routes in the city before we demand the freedom our constitution gives us? I don't care if those people don't like my middle class ass walking down their ghetto - I have the freedom to do so and I ought to be able to do it with the expectation of not being assaulted. They enjoy this freedom walking down my street.

 

Why do we accept crime and the threat of such?

[Edtharan]

I think the main reason is that we can't just take people off the street in case they might do a crime. The crimes have to be committed before we respond to the events. So if we are going to tackle crime, they first must be committed. This means that there must always be some crime rate.

 

Also, even if we were able to eliminate all needs for crime (drugs, poverty, etc) there will still be crimes of passion. People get angry and might hit someone (I'm not making excuses for people like this though), the mentally ill, etc.

 

We could never eliminate these because their causation is in a place that can not be predicted and is immediate (the cause and the crime occur close together in time).

 

All these mean is that we can never completely remove the possibility that a crime could occur. This results in some minimal amount of crime rate that we have to accept.

 

However, I do believe that we might be able to reduce the crime rate more by dealing with the issues of the divide between the rich and the poor.

 

IIRC (I saw a graph once but can't remember where) there is a correlation between the gap between rich and poor and the level of criminal activity. The greater the difference, the greater the crime rate.

[Mokele]

Obviously we have to realize the realities of human nature, but what kind of goal are we setting when we accept a certain rate of crime - and our proud of ourselves when it doesn't rise? I don't get it.

 

You've got the answer right there: nothing will *ever* push the crime rate to zero. Violence is intrinsic to human nature, and we'll never be truly rid of it. How could we? Even if we banned all weapons, people would still beat the shit out of each other, or bludgeon others to death with rocks.

 

Yeah, zero crime would be great, but so would unlimited free gourmet meals and roads made of solid gold, and zero crime is actually less likely. Hell, even if you did set up society so that no sane person would commit a crime, there's still all the insane people.

 

We accept it because, quite simply, it's not going away, so the best we can hope is to reduce it.

 

Mokele

[Royston]

Well who 'accepts' crime, except the criminal ? Also, there are numerous reasons why crime exist, poverty, upbringing, imposing laws incite people to break them et.c et.c How would you go about trying to stamp out crime, when there's so many reasons crime happens.

 

If we're going to take your personal example, then I agree, there shouldn't be areas that have high crime rates, but families with little money and possibly poor upbringings are lumped together, and it's a recipe for disaster. So it stands to reason there are crime rates, because for a lot of people, in order to survive, they have no choice but to resort to crime. They're born into that way of life, and that's all they know. I certainly don't think it's accepted, even by them, but there's no clear cut solution.

 

There's areas near where I live, that I'd be happier walking through Tegucigalpa at night, with a 'God Bless America' T shirt on, in fact I'd go as far to say, our local train station is the most dangerous place on the planet Nobody 'accepts' that this is how it should be, but policing et,c costs money, and you can't expect certain areas to have 24hr surveillance I don't mean just CCTV.

 

Just the other day, on the way back from work...a couple of girls got on the bus, and started abusing people, throwing things around, stealing hats et.c Now it sounds quite tame, but everyone on the bus sat there in silence, and didn't do anything...that's just fear. There was an incident recently when this behaviour led to someone being stabbed, and nobody intervened...again fear. What exactly are you supposed to do in a situation like that, get stabbed yourself...so as much as I sympathize with your view, there's pretty much jack you can do about it. So I don't think anyone 'accepts' crime, there's just little can be done, and this is economic and social problems that cannot be remedied at the drop of the hat.

[Phi for All]

As individuals we sometimes forget we are not alone. It's bad to feel threatened as you walk the streets alone but it's much worse to allow two girls to terrorize a whole busload of people. Chances are if just one person stood up on that bus and said, "WE aren't going to sit here and let you do this. You can frighten one person but this bus has twenty people on it and we're ALL standing up to you RIGHT NOW!" those girls would sit down and get off at the next stop. Of course, it would really help if the rest of the folks on the bus took your cue and actually stood up but people are always looking for someone else to lead in situations like that and they're grateful when someone else takes charge. Even criminals with guns aren't going to shoot an entire busload of people who stand up to them.

 

I'm a big fan of the Broken Window Theory. Fix up your neighborhood, clean up the graffitti, fix the broken windows and show the criminals that *this* neighborhood CARES. Again, everyone needs to take a stand and they will rally around someone who starts the movement to remind them that they aren't alone. Criminals want easy pickings and apathy is their greatest ally.

 

There will always be crime but it doesn't have to be so high where you are if you're willing to get others motivated to help reduce it. The Broken Window Theory has been tried and tested in many hardcore crime areas in the US (and elsewhere I believe) and it works. Unfortunately it requires vigilance and while most people are willing to get fired up if they know they aren't alone eventually apathy sets back in if you don't stay on top of things.

 

It's really weird how banding together to make something positive happen is one of the greatest feelings in the world and empowers us as a community, yet our default state seems to be one where we just want to be by ourselves and do our own thing. As a species we tend to forget our power as a group and seem to prefer our weakness as individuals.

[ParanoiA]

Nobody 'accepts' that this is how it should be, but policing et,c costs money, and you can't expect certain areas to have 24hr surveillance I don't mean just CCTV.

 

Yes, we can expect that. Because we CAN do it. We have become complacent. Why not double or triple the size of our police force so that their presence is far more prolific. Is there really such a thing as pinching pennies at the expense of murder? Rape?

 

I guess I'm tired of seeing broken parents, grief stricken pleas on the public to realize the state of crime in this country. Why wait until your son or daughter is the victim of such? Let's get irate now.

 

We accept it because, quite simply, it's not going away, so the best we can hope is to reduce it.

 

True, but why set your goal there? Quite simply, if I try to become an astronaut, I probably won't make it. The odds are ridiculously against the possibility. But would anybody teach their kid not to set that goal?

 

I'm just saying our goal should be zero. Right now, we (as in the voting public) demand effectively nothing from our law enforcement. If we're going to smile and pat each other on the back for 20 less murders than the year before, when murder is still measured in the hundreds, then we're really setting our expectations low. Not just low...but practically non-existent.

 

I think the main reason is that we can't just take people off the street in case they might do a crime. The crimes have to be committed before we respond to the events. So if we are going to tackle crime, they first must be committed. This means that there must always be some crime rate.

 

Good point, but I think there are other preventative things we can do that don't trample on our basic civil rights and drastically stifle crime. Police presence is a major influence, in my opinion. I'm sure people smarter than me can think of a bunch of others.

 

 

I almost cried when I read what Couey did to that poor 9 yr old girl. I don't even know these people, but I couldn't imagine being sane after suffering a loss like that - and knowing my little girl pleaded for her life clutching a stuffed dinosaur while some monster buries her alive after raping her.

 

How can it not be our priority to stop this? Isn't that worse than any other problem we face right now, besides the war or other global catastrophes? We demand solutions from our government on so many things - 99% of them are less important than this.

 

Edit: Excellent post Phi.

[Royston]

Chances are if just one person stood up on that bus and said, "WE aren't going to sit here and let you do this. You can frighten one person but this bus has twenty people on it and we're ALL standing up to you RIGHT NOW!" those girls would sit down and get off at the next stop. Of course, it would really help if the rest of the folks on the bus took your cue and actually stood up but people are always looking for someone else to lead in situations like that and they're grateful when someone else takes charge. Even criminals with guns aren't going to shoot an entire busload of people who stand up to them.

 

This ran through my mind at the time, and the little scenarios that go through your head of how you could stop it et.c. Unfortunately, you do need the help of others in that situation, and you can't guarantee that, and it's that uncertainty that holds you back. Also, you can't bargain with kids like this...they must of been 14-15, chavs to the bone, and I'd rather not get into a scuffle with a 14 year old girl, because they certainly didn't listen to any of the protests by the other passengers, it was just met with relentless abuse.

 

There's a lot of crime committed by kids, and we're pretty much powerless to intervene, and as much as it would be great that everyone stood up, and escorted them kicking and screaming off the bus...people don't want trouble, they've been at work all day, they want to get home, have dinner with the family et.c It's sad that people don't stand together in such situations, but that's reality.

 

I agree with the broken window idea, am I right that they used that strategy in NY, tackling petty crime, and it had a knock on effect (correct me if I'm wrong on this.) The policing in our local city has improved greatly over the years, a couple of years ago we were waiting for a taxi home, and a group of 20 or so teenagers decided they wanted a scrap...literally in 2 mins, the police arrived, very impressive, there was no time for anything to happen, and it does make you feel very much more secure.

 

However these examples, and tackling more serious crime such as isolated murder and rape cases is a completely different kettle of fish, and you can't solve such crime by scrubbing away graffiti, and making a stand.

 

If there are numerous murders in a certain area i.e gang violence, then the broken window idea, would certainly be a good start. If you improve the environment where people live, they 'should' in theory want to maintain those improvements.

[YT2095]

Why do we accept crime and the threat of such?

 

I have no idea! but I strongly suspect it has to do with the Bigger Criminals accepting it.

giving ordinary Joe Public such as you and I no option other than to comply.

 

and yes, I agree with the sentiments laid down in your original post 100%!

[Dak]

I think the reason we accept crime is simply because we're not willing to accept the methods that might near-eliminate it.

 

put cameras on every street corner, sample everyones fingerprints and DNA when they turn 16, and you'll have virtually 0-crime. will people accept that, tho? no. it'd be 'a police state', or 'a violation of civil liberties'.

 

quadruple the police force, the forensic-science service's budget, and the CID, and crime would plumet. are we willing to pay the extra tax neccesary? no. we'd rather have more beer-money.

 

Illegalise guns, and murder would plummet. this is a proven fact, by assessing murders in countrys with/without easy access to firearms. will you do it? hell no, your right to get shot is constitutionally protected.

 

accept that some people are poor and/or jobless through no fault of their own, and that occasionally crime is the only option to provide for ones family; accept that people must be given a legal option to provide for their family before crime will approach 0; and provide this option through minimum wage laws, govournment employment, welfare, etc. this costs money. will the extra tax be accepted? NO!

 

wanna pay the tax neccesary to turn prisons into educatoinal and rehabilitation detention centres, that -- whilst offering education that would allow a legitimate carreer upon leaving -- are not 'criminal schools' no!

 

people accept crime because they wont accept the cures for crime. even the least extreme -- increasing the police force -- wont be tolerated, as people genuinely prefer lower taxes to safety, in a "it'll never happen to me" kinda way.

[ParanoiA]

put cameras on every street corner, sample everyones fingerprints and DNA when they turn 16, and you'll have virtually 0-crime. will people accept that, tho? no. it'd be 'a police state', or 'a violation of civil liberties'.

 

Maybe the sampling of everyone's fingerprints and DNA would be a violation, but I don't think camera's on every corner would be. I'm sure everyone would bitch, but really, what's the difference between people's eyes watching you and cameras? In big cities, it's not uncommon to see tens, or even hundreds of people walking down a sidewalk at any given time. That's a lot of eyes that could be looking at you. Why not cameras?

 

quadruple the police force, the forensic-science service's budget, and the CID, and crime would plumet. are we willing to pay the extra tax neccesary? no. we'd rather have more beer-money.

 

I don't agree. That idea hasn't been proposed to the voting public. At least not here in KC. Again, I think people would bitch a little, but when you remind them of how many sexual child predators live in their neighborhood, I'll bet they'll rethink it. Someone with passion and anger needs to lead such a movement. That would help alot.

 

Illegalise guns, and murder would plummet. this is a proven fact, by assessing murders in countrys with/without easy access to firearms. will you do it? hell no, your right to get shot is constitutionally protected.

 

Well that won't work actually. It's not proven by a long shot. Go tell Switzerland your supposed "fact". Murder of the innocent will plummet when the innocent start murdering the murderers. The more stories you hear on the news about dead criminals, the more they lose their power and begin to fear us like they should. That will never happen in this country. (No I don't mean vigilante justice, I mean shooting the intruder instead of compying with him...)

 

accept that some people are poor and/or jobless through no fault of their own, and that occasionally crime is the only option to provide for ones family; accept that people must be given a legal option to provide for their family before crime will approach 0; and provide this option through minimum wage laws, govournment employment, welfare, etc. this costs money. will the extra tax be accepted? NO!

 

I don't know how murder helps feed your family. You're talking about stealing. I'm not. I'm talking about violent crime. Rape and murder, assualt - that sort of thing. These things don't help with poverty, although they may help cope with poverty. I shouldn't have to feed you and clothe you in order to keep you from killing my daughter because you're poor and this is your release. I don't think that's happening anyway.

 

people accept crime because they wont accept the cures for crime. even the least extreme -- increasing the police force -- wont be tolerated, as people genuinely prefer lower taxes to safety, in a "it'll never happen to me" kinda way.

 

I don't know, monsters like Couey really get parents nervous. As I mentioned above, a movement built off of anger and frustration could go a long way with the american public. A few photos, gut wrenching stories - can get people motivated to realize it really can happen to them.

[Royston]

I must admit, I'm still not getting the 'we accept' crime. In what way do we 'accept' it. It's just a case, as with my previous examples, there's little anybody can do to completely quash crime. Whatever laws, or restrictions are imposed, criminals will always find a way round these changes.

 

I'll use another 'chav' example to illustrate my point. In the neighboring town where I used to live, there was a foot bridge over a river, leading to the beach (I lived on the beach.) Most Friday evenings, there would be a huge mob of pre-pubescent teenagers, getting drunk, and in some cases hurling abuse at passers by on the beach side of the foot bridge. There was CCTV on the mainland end of the footbridge, but not on the other end.

 

Now after a couple of months, there were articles in the local newspaper and the monthly 'beach community' news (really quaint, had articles about cygnets as new arrivals to the local river et.c.) Anyway, the residents decided enough was enough...so every Friday we had police presence, and the chavs moved on. The chavs moved on to the high street, strategically positioned out of the sight of CCTV, and carried on, as any irrepressible chav would do. AFAIK, they've been moved on again, and they hang out near a train station (not the one I mentioned previously.) Now, if anybody 'accepted' their presence, they would still be at the end of the footbridge. This principle can be applied to a whole range of criminal activity.

 

So I can't see crime as being rife due to acceptance, criminals learn from past mistakes like anybody else. They learn from previous criminal activity, and find better and more cunning ways of cheating the system. So how can you accept something, that you only have 'partial' (emphasis on partial) control over.

[Dak]

Maybe the sampling of everyone's fingerprints and DNA would be a violation, but I don't think camera's on every corner would be. I'm sure everyone would bitch, but really, what's the difference between people's eyes watching you and cameras? In big cities, it's not uncommon to see tens, or even hundreds of people walking down a sidewalk at any given time. That's a lot of eyes that could be looking at you. Why not cameras?

 

why not DNA and fingerprints? if someone knows that, even with a clean record, raping someone will likely result in his being captured due to a DNA match, or glassing someone will result in him being captured by a fingerprint match, then they'd be much less inclined to commit the crime.

 

as for why not cameras, i agree with you, but a significant number of people dont, it would appear; tho, googling about i didn't find the plethora of "oh noes, teh cameraz are invading!!!11" that i thought i would, so maybe i just heard a few of the more vocal anti-camera brigade?

 

I don't agree. That idea hasn't been proposed to the voting public. At least not here in KC. Again, I think people would bitch a little, but when you remind them of how many sexual child predators live in their neighborhood, I'll bet they'll rethink it. Someone with passion and anger needs to lead such a movement. That would help alot.

 

achk. i'd be opposed to a 'think of the childeren' line used to justify it (same as i'd be opposed to a 'think of the terrorists' line to justify it), but i guess that might go some way to fixing the problem.

 

maybe the police force is less under-staffed in the US than in the UK, but over here, you'd have, i think, to have a rather large tax increase to have a significant effect.

 

 

Well that won't work actually. It's not proven by a long shot. Go tell Switzerland your supposed "fact". Murder of the innocent will plummet when the innocent start murdering the murderers. The more stories you hear on the news about dead criminals, the more they lose their power and begin to fear us like they should. That will never happen in this country. (No I don't mean vigilante justice, I mean shooting the intruder instead of compying with him...)

 

iirc, the amount of accidental deaths in the home by gunshot > the amount of shot 'intruders' that later turn out to be a resident returning unexpectedly > the amount of people shot with a gun the interloper picked up in the house > the amount of actual theives that are shot.

 

you may have a point with sweden, but then you may not. out of sweden, EU countries, and america, the 'everyone can own guns' countries have both the highest and lowest gun-crime rates... so i suppose you can't clearly say that banning them is good or bad.

 

however, i will maintain this: if it's established that criminalising or heavily regulating guns would lower crime in america, thered still be heavy opposition.

 

I don't know how murder helps feed your family. You're talking about stealing. I'm not. I'm talking about violent crime. Rape and murder, assualt - that sort of thing. These things don't help with poverty, although they may help cope with poverty. I shouldn't have to feed you and clothe you in order to keep you from killing my daughter because you're poor and this is your release. I don't think that's happening anyway.

 

my bad; you're right, that bit only applies to theives, not violent criminals.

 

I don't know, monsters like Couey really get parents nervous. As I mentioned above, a movement built off of anger and frustration could go a long way with the american public. A few photos, gut wrenching stories - can get people motivated to realize it really can happen to them.

 

yeah, but you have to consider why no polititians have done this... i recon they suspect people would be disinterested when the cost is mentioned.

 

You'd have to have a pretty water-tight plan, with a high chance of payoff...

[ParanoiA]

I must admit, I'm still not getting the 'we accept' crime. In what way do we 'accept' it. It's just a case, as with my previous examples, there's little anybody can do to completely quash crime. Whatever laws, or restrictions are imposed, criminals will always find a way round these changes.

 

We accept it because it's become a part of life so much so, that aren't really striving to rid of it. Just like the drug war. They're not really fighting it, they're just doing damage control. Same with violent crime. Your post is true, but it's a horrible attitude. When you accept they'll always find a way around it, then you quit trying at all. You just keep things the way they are. And the way things are is unacceptable to me.

 

Think of the Iraq war. Everyone is up in arms and NO ONE is accepting it. They consistently fight and bitch, a consistent struggle of power and ideas have covered the front page news for years now on it. Yet, we've lost a little over 2000 soldiers. Meanwhile, we've lost more than that in citizens in our own damn country. And no one is up in arms, consistently fighting and railing against this - demanding action by our politicians. Some of these are little kids who have had gruesome, stomach turning, heart aching crimes commited against them. Yet everyone is more concerned over grown soldiers that volunteered for war.

 

That is what I mean by acceptance. We have accepted it way too much, for way too damn long. I'm sick of it. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We have let ourselves down - particularly our kids.

 

yeah, but you have to consider why no polititians have done this... i recon they suspect people would be disinterested when the cost is mentioned.

 

And that's when I'd shame them and ask them to come up with a price for their son or daughter. How much is this one worth? Where's the cutoff? 50 bucks a month? 100 bucks a month?

 

I realize that's highly emotional. But why not? Is there really a limit to how much we'll spend to regain control of our country? It's more important than just about anything being fought over in DC right now.

 

Incidentally, this is also why I propose the elimination of victimless crime. When you can get a serious handle on violent crime - I mean next to zero rate - then we can talk about non-violent crime. Which I'll never agree with anyway, but how can you justify a building full of DEA agents when we know those resources redirected to violent crimes would help decrease violent crime?

 

We're basically saying we'd rather catch 5 murderers and 5 drug dealers than 10 murderers. I'm sure the yield wouldn't be that linear, but I think the point still applies.

 

Too bad I'm not a whore celebrity, like Brittney, or I could get the whole country behind me...

[ParanoiA]

I'll use another 'chav' example to illustrate my point. In the neighboring town where I used to live' date=' there was a foot bridge over a river, leading to the beach (I lived on the beach.) Most Friday evenings, there would be a huge mob of pre-pubescent teenagers, getting drunk, and in some cases hurling abuse at passers by on the beach side of the foot bridge. There was CCTV on the mainland end of the footbridge, but not on the other end.

 

Now after a couple of months, there were articles in the local newspaper and the monthly 'beach community' news (really quaint, had articles about cygnets as new arrivals to the local river et.c.) Anyway, the residents decided enough was enough...so every Friday we had police presence, and the chavs moved on. The chavs moved on to the high street, strategically positioned out of the sight of CCTV, and carried on, as any irrepressible chav would do. AFAIK, they've been moved on again, and they hang out near a train station (not the one I mentioned previously.) Now, if anybody 'accepted' their presence, they would still be at the end of the footbridge. This principle can be applied to a whole range of criminal activity.[/quote']

 

So the moral of the story is just let them hang out where they want and just take the abuse?

 

Human beings will never quit murderering each other. So should we just quit legislating against it?

 

Come on...I know they'll relocate - the broken window method causes that. But when NO ONE will accept their location, then they either remain a nomad clan of losers with no home, and therefore no power or they disintegrate completely. Push NEEDS to come to shove. We need to corner them and have it out. Giving them breathing room and allowing them to continue, establishing new strongholds throughout the city is not a solution either.

[Royston]

So the moral of the story is just let them hang out where they want and just take the abuse?

 

No, not at all, don't get me wrong, it p*sses me off more than you probably think. I was furious after the bus journey I brought up earlier. My point being, even if we had compulsory tags on every citizen, plotting their every move, I can guarantee somebody, somewhere would develop a way of getting round it. A new technology comes out, criminals instantly look for ways of countering that technology. I'm not saying we should get complacent, or stop trying, but this is why I think crime is, and probably always will be, rife. The problem as Dak has illustrated, if you clamp down too much, then the control that ruling bodies will have, would mean they can impose laws through that medium e.g I have the same beef with I.D cards. They can impose restrictions using such tactics, so that everybody is treated as a criminal, and that's just not ethical IMO.

 

Human beings will never quit murderering each other. So should we just quit legislating against it?

 

No, but as I've said before in a thread (last year) I think, you need to find 'why' people murder, rather than just trying to stop it (which is obviously being done) e.g studying the psychology of inmates et.c Looking for behavioral traits in children, and treating those problems before they grow up into an axe wielding maniac. Until we have definitive answers at treating social problems at the source, it will carry on as temporary measures that will consistently be countered. Of course tackling such problems on a social level is just one aspect, economic problems clearly don't help.

 

With kids on the streets et.c well they're just being kids...every generation has it's version of chav, loitering, bored and just want a bit of excitement. So you can move them on, but they certainly won't diminish into obscurity, like you've described. I'd love a society, where everyone treats each other with respect, and are well educated et.c et.c but it's not something that can happen just like that...we don't have the means or the knowledge to pull it off, yet, if ever. I'm not being defeatist, just realistic.

[ParanoiA]

My point being, even if we had compulsory tags on every citizen, plotting their every move, I can guarantee somebody, somewhere would develop a way of getting round it.

 

Ok, but that's a valid point only when we're talking about the complete elimination of crime. I'm talking about not accepting the thousands, hundreds - even tens, if it got that low - of citizens killed, raped, assaulted every year, that we accept currently.

 

We're a long way away from getting to the point that the total elimination of crime is relevant. But I love the concept. And I do generally agree with the rest of your post.

[Dak]

And that's when I'd shame them and ask them to come up with a price for their son or daughter. How much is this one worth? Where's the cutoff? 50 bucks a month? 100 bucks a month?

 

I think you over-estimate peoples niceness.

 

concider this: if theres a 1/1000 chance that someones kid will get murdered in their lifetime, will they pay $100/month to reduce that to 0?

 

mostly, no. people will want the extra $100/month spending money with a 1/1000 chance of their son being murdered. sure, they'll be uneasy about it, and they'll maybe not want to actually admit that they're doing this, but they'll still do it -- or, at least enough people will do it to make charging the extra $100/month democratically unfeasable.

 

also, someone will point out that the above figures mean that for everyone who pays $100/month to save their kid, there's 999 that pay $100/month with no tangable reward (ie, their kid would not be murdered without the extra policing); in other word, for every person saved, we're paying $100,000 tax-payers money every single month of their life, that this is probably someone elses kid anyway, and that its tax that could better be spent on education, research, NHS, defence, etc, (of course, the alternative of charging more tax for these area's is unthinkable)... all it would take is for someone to point out that, say, $100,000/month extra to the NHS would save two lifes, and people would grab the rationalisation not to be sold on spending the money on policing (not that they'd spend it on the NHS, either).

 

bottom line: the police, the fire-brigade, our soldures, the NHS, scientists researching cures for cancer, and many other groups for who money directly translates into more saved lifes are underfunded, because, yes, human life does have a price, it's not very much, and, no, apparently inaction is not as bad as action, and so a few extra pints for someone/month and that new wide-screen TV that they've got their eye on is well-worth someone elses life, be it due to less-than-best policing, understaffed/equipped hospitals, lack of life-saving research, or whatever. they'd balk at murdering someone for $100/month, but not at letting 1/000th of the population die for the same.

 

and If lucascapa comes along and points out i'm being overly-optimistic about humans here, i'm gonna just lose all faith in humanity

 

Incidentally, this is also why I propose the elimination of victimless crime. When you can get a serious handle on violent crime - I mean next to zero rate - then we can talk about non-violent crime. Which I'll never agree with anyway, but how can you justify a building full of DEA agents when we know those resources redirected to violent crimes would help decrease violent crime?

 

drug-dealers -- at least the big trafficers -- are usually quite violent, and organised crime is much more of a problem than random thuggery, as it represents a concerted and organised effort to disreguard our societies rules.

 

legalising drugs is viable; expending less resourses against organised crime (including drug-trafficing, for as long as it remains illegal) is not.

 

Too bad I'm not a whore celebrity, like Brittney, or I could get the whole country behind me...

 

[Phi for All]

I'm talking about not accepting the thousands, hundreds - even tens, if it got that low - of citizens killed, raped, assaulted every year, that we accept currently.

I think at this point you need to define the term "accept". Many people in the above situations may be too afraid to help a victim and risk being stabbed themselves but then they'll turn around and vote for legislation aimed at curbing such violence. To me that's not "accepting" crime.

[ParanoiA]

I think at this point you need to define the term "accept". Many people in the above situations may be too afraid to help a victim and risk being stabbed themselves but then they'll turn around and vote for legislation aimed at curbing such violence. To me that's not "accepting" crime.

 

Ok, I define "accept" as being complacent and not throwing shit fits to our government officials about it. Not being outraged and spending as much passion and rebellion as we see in the Iraq war. Where's the campouts in front of the president's house on that? Where's the picket lines on Pelosi's lawn about violent crime? Arguably, it could be considered worse than the war considering we've lost more citizens on our own soil at peacetime than soldiers in Iraq during wartime.

 

I agree, voting for legislation aimed at curbing violence is not "accepting" crime. Dak is of the position that people won't do that either. I don't agree. I have a hard time believing liberals would take that attitude, and we stay liberal enough in America. However, I could see conservatives pinching pennies and justifying it with appeals to human nature and how we'll never stop crime and blah blah blah.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, it's not like I'm not guilty of the same complacency. I'm directing this more to us as a country. Someone needs to shake us out of this sleep. Wake up! A murder rate of any value greater than a single digit is a FAILURE. We can do better.

[Sisyphus]

I guess I'm just echoing what other people have said, but I'm not sure what it is you want people to DO. War is something we choose to enter in to and we can choose to leave, but nobody is choosing crime. We might just as well have picket lines on Pelosi's lawn protesting old age. It's just not something the government can solve.

 

Help? Maybe. But I'm afraid we'd be talking about a welfare state, or a police state. It would involve majorly pragmatic, and majorly UNFAIR decisions, and libertarians everywhere would riot in the streets, and then we'd be back to where we started. You'd have to jail people who hadn't actually committed any crimes yet, and/or basically bribe people into not being criminals, rewarding the dangerous. But even then, there will always be crime, because there will always be crazy people, and there will always be times when people passions get the best of even relatively normal people.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure why violent crime is so high in America compared with comparably developed nations. Saying something about "guns" is bound to be a gross oversimplification, because we see cultures with more guns (Switzerland) and less (almost everywhere else), all of which have drastically lower murder rates. Similarly, it's not about being "soft" on criminals, since the "softest" nations also have the least violence. So handing out death sentences left and right isn't going to solve anything, either. It SEEMS to be just a very, very deep cultural thing, and existing not because of but for the same reason as the extreme and casual violence of our popular entertainment. What's more American than the cowboy show? My dad grew up in an era when half of television was these shows, where people fetishize their guns and a dozen guys in black hats never fail to get killed several times a day. Why? Who knows? Maybe it goes all the way back to the "independant frontier spirit," or even the fact that almost all of us are descended from people who gave up everything they had to come to a land of wild but vague promises of wealth and adventure.

[Phi for All]

It sure doesn't help that prisons make a ton of money for the private contractors who get concessions with them. Aramark wouldn't want legislation that will shrink their foodservice and laundry market so I doubt they fund many candidates who are *actively* out to curb crime.

 

That's total speculation though, I haven't looked up how much profit there is in providing services to the penal system. Just a gut feeling.

[ParanoiA]

From the posts in this thread, I think I've got my answer. You all aren't really all that concerned about it. But I'll bet all of you have a well thought out, passionate response to GWB and the Iraq war. On this subject? I get...'well you know man..there's always going to be crime dude...we didn't choose it...what do you expect from us'.

 

But I'll bet some of you get enraged when someone thinks like that on the Iraq war. 'well you know man...we're just trying to stop terrorism dude...we didn't ask for it...what do you expect us to do?'

 

I didn't hear that crap about GWB. Oh, we get pages and pages of ideas and rage fueled posts on that. But murdering little kids? Not much on that one...

 

I expect people to get pissed off like they do about taxes. I expect people to get enraged like they do about the Iraq war. I expect people to support folks like Bill O'rielly, who is currently putting child rapist/murderer's pictures on TV, including the Judges that granted these freaks parole. Yes I know Billy is the anti-christ to some, but I don't hear BS half-hearted defeatist appeals about crime - he's doing something. Better than any of us can say.

 

I think Dak might be right after all. Everyone operates under the "it won't happen to me" mindset.

 

I asked why we accept crime, and I think I see why. We have no hope.

 

(I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm preaching at you..I guess I am, but it really gets me worked up. I don't personally have to do anything to contribute to the anti-bigot movement - it's driven by the mass of the majority POV. I simply do my part when it comes up - voting, hiring and etc. I guess I'm just disgusted there is no similar mass driven movement fed up with any fraction of violent crime - where we collectively battle by each doing our little parts)

[Mokele]

Consider the logic behind that argument, though. Why do you get so worked up about a triviality like crime when accidents cause far more deaths per year? Why do you get so worked up about accidents in the fact of heart disease and cancer? Expanding that beyond the US, you get to include the AIDS epidemic depopulating Africa and lovely things like malaria. Hell, the per-year murder rate in the entire US is nothing compared to how many people die every day because they don't have access to clean water, common vaccines, or antibiotics.

 

The sad fact is that people's responses aren't scaled to the actual risk. We're scared of shark attack, but how many people speed?

 

Mokele

[the tree]

I'm really not sure how you intend to reduce crime to zero. Clearly you're bright enough not to think that a bazillion extra police on the streets would actually eliminate crime and not be counter-productive in some cases.

 

But yes, you're right, we don't have any hope. I'd quite like to see no violence around but I realise that doing that would not only require more law enforcement, but also removing alcohol, cocaine, poverty, racism, sectarianism, lack of support for children and a hell of a lot of other things.

 

Now, I know that's all stuff that can be worked on, but seriously, we've got heart disease and climate change to take care of as well.

[Dak]

maybe, then, people would be willing to part with an extra $100/month, but only some will want it spent on crime prevention -- others will want the NHS prioritised, others global warming, others other stuff...

 

i guess your left with limited options... "give us $20,000 a month and we'll address all the issues that you all want us to address", or "give us $100/month and we'll address issue x", which would result in most people shouting "no, address issue y first"...

 

I guess the govournment is allready doing the only sane compromise: "give us $100/month, and we'll slightly ameliorate most of the problems".

 

personally, i wouldn't mind "give us another $100/month and we'll spend it on fixing one problem -- reducing crime to as near to 0 as we can get it, equipping the NHS, etc"; once the problem has been fixed, i doubt it'd take an extra $100/month to maintain, say, a near-0 crime rate, or a better-working NHS, so the money can be switched to fixing another problem, untill they've all been adressed...

 

People would still windge about the taxes, tho. the problem with democracy is that it gives people what they want -- and what people want seems to be a crappyer, poorerly run society, and a widescreen TV