The items he listed have extremely direct impact on YOUR ability to reduce theft. You just suggested something very broad. I might make the point that punishing criminals effectively will potentially reduce overall crime, but has no direct reduction on the crime in the article. It would be very hard to show any law which specifically targets the type of crime OP posted about, but I'm open if you have seen legislation proposed or enacted which targets this crime in a major city.
Property crime is so far down the list on police priorities. Criminals know this. Soft on crime - even if it's due to lack of resources and is "only" property crime - means more crime.
The only effective way to deal with property crime during or after the fact is with increased surveillance. The success of Meta Ray Bans may make the decision for us, but until then, it's fair to point out that this is, in fact, a conversation about how much freedom we want to give up for security.
It seems more effective and less intrusive to deal with the upstream socioeconomic causes of crime (too much inequality, not enough opportunity, an overemphasis on materiality and consumption, and an underemphasis on community and expression).
What laws do you believe would be more effective a catching and punishing criminals?
AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, so laws based on deterring through fear-of-sentence would not seem to be likely to have much effect.
I think there's precedent for shipping them to Australia. It probably costs less to taxpayers, and it doesn't even harm Australians since our thieves are less dangerous than their spiders.
That tweaker/junkie who steals your bike, breaks into your storage unit, whatever? He's not an organization man. The dude with a standing offer to pay twenty bucks for the bike, or ten if it's shitty? He's with an organization.
What I propose is that we start enforcing the law and treat theft as a crime, not a nuisance or fact of life. Roll up the organizations, toss them in prison, and repeat over and over until the message gets out.
This isn't a problem which can be solved at the tweaker level. What we can do, and simply choose not to, is get every single dude with twenty bucks or a baggie to trade for your bike. All that's lacking is the political will.
I want the police to arrest, and DAs to prosecute, organized theft rings. Someone with several stolen bicycles is not a small businessman, he's a fence, and should do several years of time.
It is in fact quite easy to tell that person apart from the guy who bought a bike on Craigslist and oops, turned out it was stolen.
You're pretending this distinction is unclear to you, and insinuating that I'm proposing Soviet price controls. In reality, you are perfectly aware of the distinction and know that I'm not. That is arguing in bad faith.
Then I'm not sure what you mean by "deterrence". Both of the linked articles argue against increasing the severity of punishment, but they also say that the certainty of getting caught is a strong deterrent.
This doesn't seem to be in conflict with what the GP said ("supporting laws and politicians that catch and punish criminals effectively"). It seems to me that many people have a problem with thieves not being punished at all.
Most of the people I have read or heard advocate for "more effective handling of crime" are much bigger on the severity of the sentence, though I don't deny that many will mention both. The "N strikes and you're out" angle, for example, is all about the severity of the sentence once you reach N.
New HN commenter "smeeger" whose subthread we are in seems close to favoring violence as punishment for relatively minor crimes, for example.
Still, yes, things that significantly increased the likelihood of being caught and punished do seem like a good idea, and do not require sentencing being changed.
ive been commenting here since 2014 but have to constantly make new accounts because HN bans me for expressing problematic beliefs. the fact that this thread got through the filter feels like a miracle or a dream… you need to read more carefully. i used the word effectively for a very specific reason. even the insanely sympathetic and humane punishments on the books in western countries now would basically stop crime if they were applied and implemented properly. if punishment were actually likely. if prisons werent just boot camp for criminals. social clubs. prisoners emerge from prison emboldened, not humbled. our system is broken and it stays broken because people are crappy. recently i actually decided to stop caring because its so pointless.
oh and your hands are waving a lot more than mine… you clearly dont want to think too hard about this
