Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The question isn't whether it is or isn't rising, but what voters consider acceptable. If voters find the current level of crime unacceptable, it doesn't matter what the broader trend is.

I personally find the concept of open air drug use, retail theft, and shit on the street unacceptable, I could care less what the numbers say and will vote based off of what I see with my own eyes. And whether or not that's "statistically sound", I could care less. Crime is decreasing? Okay, I guess it isn't decreasing quickly enough




No.

The question is absolutely whether crime is or is not rising. Factually.

Another question is what voters think. And yes that can affect politics.

But the truth still matters. Actual reality is still very much the question for a lot of people.

And we can do things like compare statistics with perceptions and figure out what is causing the discrepancies.


> Factually.

Whose facts? Who do you trust and is it a source I do, too? What's included their data and what isn't? How recent is the data they're using?

If I go by the FBI a few months ago, crime is down. But the data is only up through 2022, so someone using another source will say the FBI info is inaccurate.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2022-cr...

> the truth still matters

Maybe they matter, but there are multiple truths.

> Actual reality is still very much the question for a lot of people

Maybe those people don't realize that even science is our best understanding given current data. Or that our "truths" are often hazy statistical models. A sure recipe for falsehood is seeking simple answers.


What are you arguing? That we're can't know anything ever? That's not very useful in any kind of practical sense.

Figuring out what's going on from statistics isn't that hard if you understand how those statistics are being collected.

But they sure beat whatever you, a single person, happens to see with your own eyes. Your personal experience is an almost infinitesimally small random slice. It's just not statistically significant.

Statistics may always have error bars, but the errors bars around your personal sampling of one will always be incomparably larger.


But you don't even know what to vote for because no one knows what policies reduce crime.

We do know that stricter sentencing doesn't work, but outside of that there are a million guesses.

You could easily vote for someone who pretends to know and makes the problem worse.


> We do know that stricter sentencing doesn't work

"Doesn't work" in what sense? In a rehabilitative sense? Is everyone in agreement that this is its intended purpose? Also: for what types of crimes?

Kind of hard to believe really, you think the Code of Hammurabi didn't work?


No need to believe me when you could have spent this same amount of time just researching it for yourself. It's probably the first thing anyone talks about when they seriously discuss reducing crime rates.

tl;dr If you put enough people in prison for long enough, you will naturally reduce the crime rate because such a huge number of people are incarcerated. That doesn't justify things like life sentences for possession of marijuana.

But overall, you don't reduce an individual's likelihood to commit a crime either before or after their time in prison using longer sentences.

> Kind of hard to believe really, you think the Code of Hammurabi didn't work?

No, I don't.

1. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

2. https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-pu...

3. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/19/do-long...

4. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-s...

5. https://counciloncj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Impact-of...

6. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/does-being-tough-on-...

7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: