[jirdperson]

This is somewhat tangential to your point, but I think catching more “criminals” (I.e. people who break laws, which is virtually everyone at some point - though many won’t even realize it and are unlikely to face consequences) can certainly lead to an increase in crime. In the US, at least, contact with the criminal justice system can significantly reduce social and economic opportunities and increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in future criminal activity.

[iguy]

"catch[ing] more criminals" was a quote from above. But I used it when discussing murder, not jaywalking.

I agree that being locked up once surely makes going straight harder (because employers are wary) and going crooked easier (as you now have more contacts). This is a real problem we should try to address. But I'm not convinced that looking the other way at violent crime is at all the right approach.

However, there is no way this is the main causal link between policing & crime. It's like suggesting that the birth rate is caused by hiring more schoolteachers in a neighborhood, ignoring the obvious fact that the city hires them (largely) based on observed need.

[jirdperson]

> I agree that being locked up once surely makes going straight harder (because employers are wary) and going crooked easier (as you now have more contacts).

It's not just a question of "going straight" - most "criminals" aren't professionals who have to make a discrete decision to stop their hypothetical "life of crime." Even if we ignore the types of "crime" that essentially involve engaging in normal behavior and being unlucky enough to get caught (ex. jaywalking, driving after having a few drinks at happy hour, or smoking marijuana) and look at violent crime, you'll find that a significant percentage of that is the result of social/psychological/economic instability and is directed at those within the social network of the individual involved. Many of these crimes are so-called "crimes of passion" or the result of some form of mental illness - in neither case is an individual likely to stop, think carefully, and rationally conclude that committing a violent crime is in their best interest.

You can lock someone like that up to prevent them from repeating actions that harm those around them, but you can only do that retroactively (which does little in material terms for victims). Given that less than half of crimes committed each year (including violent crime) are even reported to the police, and that a majority of crimes which are reported to the police aren't solved, it seems much more proactive to work towards a solution that prevents people from ending up in the type of situation that produces criminals to begin with. Proactive policing can easily be at odds with that goal if it throws petty criminals into unmanageable situations that preclude them from having a "normal" life. We can't forget that poverty itself is hugely correlated with crime.

> But I'm not convinced that looking the other way at violent crime is at all the right approach.

I don't think anyone is proposing "looking the other way" with regard to violent crime. I'm certainly not. I think it would be beneficial to make prisons more humane, in that it would increase the chance of rehabilitating them, but I don't think enacting some real-life version of "The Purge" is a reasonable course of action.

> However, there is no way this is the main causal link between policing & crime.

Oh, I definitely agree. My intention was to point out an edge case, not imply that police are the main source of crime.