I see your point, and I appreciate the replies. You make some very good points and honestly after thinking about it, you're right. When it comes to issues like this the importance is elevated above standard matters of common sense. Further digging is required when the consequence is human lives. I still do trust my intuition, but I'll look into some of the research nonetheless. I get that it is frustrating to encounter this line of thinking because it's very resistant to change, and I apologize.
But of course, things do go both ways. Part of the reason people like me adopt such dug-in positions is because there's just so much stupid shit and terrible ideas in society that some kind of filter becomes necessary, and it's not always easy to tune. For every legitimate, good-intentioned proposition out there that may contradict common sense, there are another 10 idiotic propositions, and it can become very laborious to look through them all to try to find the good ones. And you have to understand that I don't have my position out of malice, it's moreso a greater concern for the welfare of what I'd call "law abiding citizens" than what I'd call "criminals" (now that we have clarified the definitions). You may disagree with this, but I don't think it makes me evil or malicious.
Now I do want to say one thing. It is not IMPOSSIBLE to convince me of something when my common sense tells me otherwise. If I could see an example of a major US city, very similar to the ones I've lived in, that has successfully been lenient on crime and had a crime decrease, then I would certainly be open to reconsidering my positions. But throughout my life it seems like the opposite has happened. It seems to me in fact that the "compassion not conviction" policies directly caused the increase in crime. SF is a city that seems to agree with me, given the Chesa Boudin recall. NYC is another example, where that city was actually quite safe in the 2000s and only seemingly with De Blasio's compassion-focused administration did it start to deteriorate again. Chicago is another example.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel I'm entirely "refusing to consider" arguments. But when it comes to things that I feel increasingly certain about, it requires an increasingly salient level of proof to convince me otherwise. Like for this particular issue, given that I've been to SF and seen with my own eyes what it's like on the streets there, it would require more than a study to convince me of this, I'd want to go and see the successful policy in action with my own eyes. Because right now my own eyes have seen that the policy was not really that successful, and news stories like the one in the OP reinforce my perception here.
This is kind of off topic, but if I could build my ideal world, I'd begin to do away with cops entirely. Modern technology could enable total, pervasive surveillance of an entire city's public areas. AI could enable automatic monitoring and enforcement. You could build a system of perfect justice, where nobody could get away with anything because it would all be seen. I'd still prefer privacy in the home so that it wouldn't be some hellish dystopia, but otherwise, hell, let's go full Minority Report. The tech is ready and I truly think it would make for a better and safer society, and eliminate lots of problems with human-centric law enforcement such as profiling, brutality, etc. In fact, I'm actually really hopeful that SF tries something like this out. Given the city's impending budget cliff and dwindling police force numbers, they may be faced with a choice between just tolerating increasing lawlessness or starting to use cheap tech to try and keep people safe in other ways.
Well for one I appreciate you sticking around for so long. For another, I admire almost nobody more in the world than a person willing to say "on second thought, you're right." My side, I'm grateful you pushed back on me when my tone was clearly insulting, because I think I'm also here to learn better how to communicate with people, and a big one for me is making sure to watch my tone. Though fwiw I really was and am fascinated by your reply, I didn't mean that condescendingly but you were right to assume so.
I think I don't want to line by line you and link bomb, though the temptation is there, but before we go our separate ways I want to somewhat address what you brought up.
I think you're probably right that the usa is a unique environment to apply the reformative justice principles, as you say and for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, such as difficulty of achieving true universal healthcare for example. I think a key reason though is the political divide in America and the outsized ability of various people and organizations to make or break a policy.
This is important in the SF case because my running theory, backed I believe by evidence (I won't link bomb) is that for example a relatively progressive politician like Chesa Boudin can be hamstrung by the cops not making as many arrests. For reasons I can't quite comprehend Boudin seems to be hated by a lot of people, but what I've found is that before he was elected the police union was already putting out hit pieces. In reality, Boudin's prosecution rates were the same or higher than his predecessor. In terms of actually putting people in jail, he was just as happy to do it as any other prosecutor, he just was brought less people to put in jail.
Now maybe he deserved to be recalled for his inability to work with the sfpd, I'm not sure, but that doesn't seem related to the two things in line with reformative justice that he did, eliminating cash bail and pretrial detention. Here's the key: there were iirc one or two high profile instances of a person out of pretrial detention that then committed a heinous crime. This is fodder for yellow journalism and confirmation bias. "See, it doesn't work, and furthermore this is an indictment of reformative justice and progressive politics!"
What is never mentioned is that certain forms of crime, particularly violent forms, did drop during his tenure, and in fact rose again after his recall.
The situation with him also seems fodder for misattribution. How much affect can one DA over the course of, what, two years, really have, in the face of record inflation and a historic pandemic? Property crime rose during his tenure but it rose across America (murder rates did too). I have lots of evidence showing that crime rates correlate more strongly with economic disparity than anything else, so if crime is going up in SF, it's probably because of that, rather than a single polarizing politician.
Basically my point is, yeah, your eyes are seeing things, no way I can deny that, but the news never reports the mundane, and the truth of it is San Francisco is a relatively boring place. There are far more violent cities in America, but for whatever reason the media loves to paste a sensationalist story of every single murder in SF, every single robbery. Your eyes can only see what's put in front of them, and crime stats aren't being put in front of them. Little Rock had 119 murders last year, twice San Francisco's, but the media doesn't tout every single one as either the personal failure of a socialist DA or the collective failure of progressive politics in general, so nobody talks about it.
So that's why I argue so strongly in favor of the boring: awareness of cognitive biases and rhetorical fallacies, research, and statistics, because I don't think the more exciting way of being aware of the world will give you an accurate picture. Maybe the job of people like me is to find ways to get this information in front of people that doesn't involve insulting them on internet forums lol
In any case having previously lived in SF I feel like what you're seeing on the streets there is less to do with murderers and more to do with the outsized homeless population and lack of public restrooms. I suppose the car break-ins thing is bad but from what I've read the sfpd is neither defunded nor under staffed (compared to cities with worse or more crime), so I'm not sure what's preventing them from making arrests? My pet theory is they're just kinda shit at their jobs, maybe on purpose. Plenty of stories on here of people showing them GPS tracking for a stolen bike and them shrugging their shoulders.
As for your ideal world, that certainly agrees with the evidence that certainty of punishment is the best deterrent (though deterrence is not necessarily the best way to reduce crime). Having though lived in a pervasive surveillance police state (the PRC) I hesitate to throw my weight behind it. Then again Taiwan has somewhat pervasive surveillance and I haven't found any privacy issues as a result, perhaps because the digital minister is an advocate for privacy, or maybe because much of the surveillance is from private businesses on their stores. There's other considerations with the AI thing such as AI can fail to face recognize on black people more frequently than white depending on the model which could deepen inequalities of the application of justice in the USA. Also such a tool, if built with good intentions, could be abused upon the election of some kind of fascist, and used to target political enemies. In general I'm on board with ideas that reduce brutality and profiling.
Anyway my final question I think is: if you were willing to grant there might be something to my idea that the truth may be more hidden away in statistics and studies, is there a way to bring that truth "before the eyes" of a million people all who have their own things they're worrying about?
But of course, things do go both ways. Part of the reason people like me adopt such dug-in positions is because there's just so much stupid shit and terrible ideas in society that some kind of filter becomes necessary, and it's not always easy to tune. For every legitimate, good-intentioned proposition out there that may contradict common sense, there are another 10 idiotic propositions, and it can become very laborious to look through them all to try to find the good ones. And you have to understand that I don't have my position out of malice, it's moreso a greater concern for the welfare of what I'd call "law abiding citizens" than what I'd call "criminals" (now that we have clarified the definitions). You may disagree with this, but I don't think it makes me evil or malicious.
Now I do want to say one thing. It is not IMPOSSIBLE to convince me of something when my common sense tells me otherwise. If I could see an example of a major US city, very similar to the ones I've lived in, that has successfully been lenient on crime and had a crime decrease, then I would certainly be open to reconsidering my positions. But throughout my life it seems like the opposite has happened. It seems to me in fact that the "compassion not conviction" policies directly caused the increase in crime. SF is a city that seems to agree with me, given the Chesa Boudin recall. NYC is another example, where that city was actually quite safe in the 2000s and only seemingly with De Blasio's compassion-focused administration did it start to deteriorate again. Chicago is another example.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel I'm entirely "refusing to consider" arguments. But when it comes to things that I feel increasingly certain about, it requires an increasingly salient level of proof to convince me otherwise. Like for this particular issue, given that I've been to SF and seen with my own eyes what it's like on the streets there, it would require more than a study to convince me of this, I'd want to go and see the successful policy in action with my own eyes. Because right now my own eyes have seen that the policy was not really that successful, and news stories like the one in the OP reinforce my perception here.
This is kind of off topic, but if I could build my ideal world, I'd begin to do away with cops entirely. Modern technology could enable total, pervasive surveillance of an entire city's public areas. AI could enable automatic monitoring and enforcement. You could build a system of perfect justice, where nobody could get away with anything because it would all be seen. I'd still prefer privacy in the home so that it wouldn't be some hellish dystopia, but otherwise, hell, let's go full Minority Report. The tech is ready and I truly think it would make for a better and safer society, and eliminate lots of problems with human-centric law enforcement such as profiling, brutality, etc. In fact, I'm actually really hopeful that SF tries something like this out. Given the city's impending budget cliff and dwindling police force numbers, they may be faced with a choice between just tolerating increasing lawlessness or starting to use cheap tech to try and keep people safe in other ways.