[Reubend]

> Ideally, we'd fix the problem of unhoused people on the margins of society and we'd eliminate the vast majority of thefts like this.

I don't see any evidence of this.

The article did point out that only 5% of the arrests were organized criminals, but I would expect the organized ones to do more than their fair share of total thefts. I'd also expect them to get arrested less often than their amateur counterparts.

But more importantly, your proposal assumes that eliminating poverty would eliminate crime. That makes intuitive sense, but I don't think it's true. I've heard that many of the package thieves in my neighborhood are middle class people who just steal opportunistically.

[makeitdouble]

> I don't see any evidence of this.

> I've heard that [...]

This kinda sums the whole discussion really. We have an article that doesn't really go deep into the issue, and let's everyone come up with their own "all my homies say that XXXX" version of the root causes.

The best answer is probably that it's complicated, poverty plays a role, but so do many other critical factors (e.g. a decent summary of the studies in the field: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XGJN.pdf )

[Reubend]

> This kinda sums the whole discussion really. We have an article that doesn't really go deep into the issue, and let's everyone come up with their own "all my homies say that XXXX" version of the root causes.

It's definitely anecdotal. But I think it justifies my skepticism of the claim that eliminating poverty would "eliminate the vast majority of thefts..." The parent comment didn't provide any data to support that thesis, and it doesn't align with my experiences.

> The best answer is probably that it's complicated, poverty plays a role, but so do many other critical factors

Yes, exactly. But that's what I'm arguing: poverty isn't the only factor in property crime. And while it's nice to imagine a world in which poverty doesn't exist, I think that cultural factor combined with inequality and opportunism will cause theft to remain.

[Spivak]

I mean I don't steal because I don't have to, not because of some moral drive to care one iota about the profits of corporations. No one is asking poverty reduction to eliminate crime but it's on the theory that for most people above a certain life comfort you have more to lose than gain by petty theft and you don't need to bother.

I think "give people something to lose" is an underused and underrated crime deterrent.

[Kalium]

Most people already have something to lose. Giving them the fear of losing it has more to do with enforcement.

[makeitshine]

Not necessarily. There are places where crime is low and so is police presence, like Taipei or Tokyo. It's part of culture which is actually adhered to by most.

[lmm]

What are you talking about? There's a staffed police box in every neighbourhood in Tokyo, and even more police in the "dangerous" areas.

[makeitshine]

I have hardly ever seen police patrolling. Traffic cops at intersections, but beat cops or cops at malls, train stations, etc.. seem rare.

[lmm]

If you go through Roppongi you'll see them, largely standing around. And in most shopping streets you'll see them patrolling on bicycles or in cars. They don't tend to stand around at malls or train stations, agreed, is that normal where you come from? (It wasn't the norm when I lived in the UK).

[Fauntleroy]

It would reduce crime, not eliminate it. Important distinction.

[hackernewds]

if we tangibly know how to reduce it, we can eliminate it

[DiggyJohnson]

It is genuinely ludicrous to believe that you can outright eliminate criminality just because you can reduce criminality. Am I misunderstanding something?