When Nayib Bukele ignored the "experts" and locked up nearly 2% of El Salvador's population, not only did the homicide rate fall off a cliff—economic growth also increased. (Bukele also worked hard to woo foreign investors, without which this would not have been possible; but those investors only felt confident in investing due to the decrease in crime.)
> In effectively all societies, the vast majority of serious crimes are committed by a tiny sliver of the population who offend again and again.
I agree hence removing that 2% of murderers caused the homicide rate to drop dramatically and not just by 2%. The fact that we are even talking about homicide though is a complete detraction from the original post that is showing how giving people money helps them improve their lives and not rely on crime to sustain themselves. Are you not understanding that the majority of crime that exists in a society is petty crime that doesn’t cause any serious physical harm to others or society at large? Why do you lump murderers into this category?
> the original post that is showing how giving people money helps them improve their lives
To be clear, I'm not arguing against this claim.
> Are you not understanding that the majority of crime that exists in a society is petty crime that doesn’t cause any serious physical harm to others or society at large?
What do you mean by "petty crime?" If it's something like driving 75mph on a 65mph highway, then yes that shouldn't generally merit a harsh legal response. But petty theft, shoplifting, minor vandalism, small-scale drug dealing, school bullying etc make life miserable for people who can't afford to live far away from it. The first-order effects are bad enough, but the countless second-order effects (reduced economic investment, lower consumer spending, having to live in fear every day, can't take the bus to work, etc) are absolutely devastating. And yes, even in the poorest communities, where people are the most desperate, the vast majority still follow the law and don't resort to victimizing others.
Nobody should be surprised that removing an entire portion of the population would cause the homicide rate to fall the same way nobody would be surprised that there is less rainfall on a day that has less cloud coverage. This isn’t really addressing my point at all. The point is that crime happens because of a set of conditions. You cannot expect crime to be reduced if you remove the “criminals” without addressing the conditions that made them criminals in the first place. Homicide is not a good example here, a better example would be things like petty crime, vandalism, etc.
> Nobody should be surprised that removing an entire portion of the population would cause the homicide rate to fall the same way nobody would be surprised that there is less rainfall on a day that has less cloud coverage.
If the homicide rate had fallen by only 2%, I would not have considered it notable. In effectively all societies, the vast majority of serious crimes are committed by a tiny sliver of the population who offend again and again. Deal with that sliver, and everyone else can breathe free.
Someone is going to impose their rules on the rest of us. The only choice we have is who that someone is. "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."
(And yes, not every society has had to go as far as Bukele to acheive prosperity, freedom, and peace. All crooked timber is crooked in its own way, and different populations need different solutions but the basic principle is the same everywhere.)
