[goda90]

What if instead of trying to figure out how to catch criminals, we focus on building a society where no one wants to be a criminal? Can we find solutions to what causes crime, like desperation, greed, fear, failure to understand and have compassion for other people, etc?

[gdudeman]

For anyone trying to figure out how to build a society where no one wants to be a criminal, I highly recommend When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment by Mark Kleiman.

There are evidence-backed ways of reducing criminality.

One counterintuitive way of reducing crime is to increase the likelihood of being caught, to have small-but-increasing consequences for committing crimes, and to increase the swiftness of sentencing.

For example, if you are caught drinking and driving, you immediately spend 1-2 days in jail.

Long sentences are not very productive at reducing crime or at least are a very inefficient way to do so.

[Gigachad]

An intuitive way to understand it is imagining that there was a system where if you stole something, you 100% of the time got hit with a charge to your account of the item value + $10. No one would steal again even if the penalty for getting caught was relatively nothing. Because the feedback loop is so short and guaranteed.

No ones life would be ruined over a dumb choice and yet they would change their behavior very fast.

[bombcar]

You have to deal with the judgement-proof somehow.

There’s effectively two sets of laws - one for those with something to lose (fines, etc) and one for those with nothing to lose.

[Gigachad]

It’s still the same. If you steal something and have no money you lose the item and get some small penalty, perhaps a day in jail. If there is absolutely no chance you’d get away with it, everyone quickly realises there is no point.

[senderista]

Scott Alexander has a good analysis of these issues:

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-...

[hamdingers]

A leading cause of premature death in the US is car crashes. Car crashes are in almost all cases caused or exacerbated by operator negligence. That negligence is not caused by desperation/greed/fear/lack of empathy, but by a confidence that one won't get caught or punished.

I can't imagine a better way to deal with this problem than with cameras that can detect these behaviors and issue citations impartially and consistently.

It's totally possible to implement a system where cameras do this but do not record enough data to amount to consistent surveillance of people who aren't acting negligent (i.e. using radar to trigger them), but as long as the conversation is "cameras everywhere vs no cameras ever" these kinds of compromises seem unlikely.

[goda90]

> That negligence is not caused by desperation/greed/fear/lack of empathy, but by a confidence that one won't get caught or punished.

Greed comes in for the perceived time savings of speeding or ignoring signals or the desire to "have fun" or be perceived as cool. Lack of concern for pedestrians and other drivers/passenger by driving recklessly is the lack of empathy/compassion part.

[bombcar]

We have the technology - the government could automatically ticket you a dollar per mile per hour over the speed limit if we wanted it to.

And if nobody sped except in emergencies fatalities would likely be way down (and speed limits would be adjusted up where sane).

[daedrdev]

Reducing poverty only has a minor impact on crime.

I think some Criminals commit crimes because they know they will most likely get away with it, they are bad people

[godelski]

I think people miss that this is a possibility. Yet it's fairly easy to see that when more people become homeless more bicycles get stolen off the street. Idk about you, but I'd have to be pretty desperate to steal a bicycle. Idk about you, but if I was living on the street struggling you find food, I'd be pretty desperate. I mean FFS you don't even have a stove to cook ramen. And where are you going to get the money to afford a camping stove?

[Fogest]

Unfortunately that's not how society works. I don't think I can think of any society out there where this idealistic model works. Of course I'd love for that to happen, but that's just not where we are at right now, nor would it be something that could happen overnight. We have to live with what we have right now. And right now the majority of people seem to welcome this technology and have no problem with it at all.

My view on the topic has shifted from "how can we stop this?" to instead "how can we make sure it gets implemented in a way that has the proper checks/balances to ensure citizens still have some right to privacy even when in the public?".

Personally, I am actually more concerned about the fact that every big store out there is using technology to track me as soon as I enter the store and likely has a big profile of data on me. I'm more uncomfortable with that reality and it's something that continues to happen with no restriction. Which is why I think I'd be okay with this technology as long as it has proper auditing and is kept fairly specific in when it can be used and who has access.

[titzer]

I guffawed at "proper checks/balances". Since ICE brownshirts have been roaming around with masks and automatic weapons, abducting random people and even shooting some, you're at "checks/balances". What?

[bongoman42]

This is largely because states will not cooperate with ICE to help identify criminals among immigrants. ICE is not an issue in states where the police are cooperating with it.

[chadgpt3]

Good old-fashioned "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" extortion. Why should a state want the federal government to just do whatever it wants within that state?

[Fogest]

I'm not American, I never mentioned America, and these cameras are being installed across the world. Not everything is about America and a single government agency. Sometimes it is about the bigger picture when having discussions. I also disagree with your very biased wording of such a discussion and don't wish to go down this line of unproductive discussion.

[titzer]

The article was about Seattle and the surrounding discussion has been US-centric. I recognize it's a global problem but I don't think it's the same everywhere. We shouldn't just throw up our hands like "oh well."

[Fogest]

Yes, but you're arguing against a police agency utilizing a tool to enforce existing laws. Whether or not you agree with enforcing immigration laws is your opinion, but it is a law and that is not personally what my comment is concerned about or addressing. I am referring to misuse, this would not be misuse, it would instead be a law you disagree with enforcing. Which I feel is off-topic from my discussion as it is centered around laws you disagree with, not about the underlying idea of Flock cameras being added.

If you have a problem with police being able to utilize cameras to enforce laws, please make your case about that. But if your problem is about a specific government agency enforcing laws that you disagree with, please move on. I'm not interested in a political debate about that.

[titzer]

It feels like you have not been paying attention at all. There isn't accountability when government stormtroopers shoot law-abiding citizens in the streets. (There hasn't even been an investigation). That's not me "disagreeing with certain laws"--the federal government is blatantly violating constitutional rights--and, incidentally the law. And here you're arguing the surveillance state is going to have "proper checks and balances" and just abide by said checks and balances. You're literally saying "oh they're just enforcing the existing laws" when the current US administration is the most lawless ever and refuses to hold itself accountable for anything. The breakdown in the rule of law is just staggering. They can take their cameras and shove them.