I'm not bragging, though, what I'm getting at is that you're missing a huge part of why people steal - maybe even the largest part: because they feel they have to survive, or because it's okay because society is stacked against them.

This is what above was talking about when talking about fixing root causes. If you can ensure that people have shelter, food, safety, security, and belonging, you'll generally find that you don't need to _morally re-educate_ them, they won't have the impetus to steal.

I’m not talking about those incapable to work, of course. Funny thing is, our government gives shelter to such people, and they don’t live in the streets as well.

United States is a paradoxical country.

I’d suspect most Americans (across the political spectrum) would see these train robberies and think “these people should go to jail”, rather than moralizing about why it’s not their fault.

Jail isn't some magical free solution to your crime problems.

Would Americans still be so eager to imprison someone if they knew that the cost to incarcerate someone is ~$36k/yr? [1]

The government defines poverty as $12k/yr for individuals [2], which is three times less than the annual cost to incarcerate someone!

Is imprisoning someone at the taxpayer cost of ~$36k/yr a sustainable model?

At what point does America have a conversation about the cost of imprisonment versus the alternatives like raising the poverty line, raising minimum wage, or implementing social programs?

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09...

[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/povert...

Excusing crime because of these other things I think is patronizing to the majority of poor people that are not criminals. It's also a luxury belief imo in that the majority of victims are ethical people in poor communities getting hurt by the criminals who mostly target them (which is why you see a lot of data in poor communities asking for increased policing).

I'd guess it's a view formed from a lack of interaction with the people committing these crimes (in addition to the victims) too. Anyone can rationalize criminal behavior and make it not their fault. I don't have much tolerance for this and don't think society should really either. Discretion exists and context does matter, but people have agency and are responsible for the choices they make.

>it's okay because society is stacked against them.

If you can't find a job in the US, you won't go to another country to find one. After all, you're already in the "best country in the world".

The streets are accepted as the home of failed people (but only if we can't see them).

Medical care is provided only to people who can pay for it. That's only fair.

Also racism was solved with Obama, so just pull yourself by your bootstrap like everyone else.

Just work multiple jobs if you can't afford rent, maybe then you'll save enough to pay for education and get a higher wage job or start your own business.

/s

I’ve always felt this framing condescends to them. Sure, there’s certainly more incentive to steal at the academic extremes (bread for your starving family), but people raiding trains for packages is something else.

There should be police response to this, and people doing it should get charged.

I do read people (rightfully, IMO) claiming that societal changes can significantly decrease the number of people doing this.

I don’t believe USA has so many people in prison because its population _is_ more criminal than that of other countries.

I do. I’ve lived in some foreign countries and have come to realize that culture plays just as much if not more of a role in crime as material conditions. America has some toxic aspects to our culture that contribute to our population being more likely to commit crimes. We are hyper individualist, and more violent across all socioeconomic levels.

Simplifying things, the USA tends to think that all people who _do_ crimes _are_ criminals and, hence, should be locked up in order to decrease the amount of crime, while other countries think circumstances may have made them perform crimes, and changing circumstances may be the best way to decrease crime because it’s cheaper and/or leads to a happier population.

(In general, I think (again simplifying things), the USA prefers sending in the cavalry to save the day over doing things to prevent the need for a cavalry. You see that in infrastructure maintenance, reactions to natural disasters, and in the way it does diplomacy in the middle east, too. California is somewhat of an exception there. It invests heavily preparing for the big one)

This comment is basically arguing that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932479

They frame it a little indirectly, but it's the underlying core of their point.

You can advocate for policy that reduces crime while still enforcing laws against criminals and not excusing the criminal behavior.

Even if it does, I didn’t see that comment when I wrote mine. HN currently shows my comment as 10 hours old, the one you mention as 9, so I also think I couldn’t have seen it.

Comment numbers also support that observation (29932220 < 29932479)

Only half joking. You're right that you can fix 90% of crimes your way. But there is a group of people that, for some reason, just want to see the world burn or feel the power to make others miserable. We need to deal with them somehow.

One doesn’t need to be impoverished to steal. Some subset of individuals will always be driven to obtain “more”, even if through illicit means.

This kind of individual-first-thinking is probably one of the main reasons why we see pictures like in OP in the first place.

I'm not saying everyone has the right to bomb Times Square. But I am saying that the "individual", which some people are asserting to be a taboo idea, can use force to have a chance at preserving their life within their private residence.

To be clear, this is a political ideal of the Roman Empire that has influenced much of modern civlisation, it's not an inevitable state of humanity.

“If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Codex_Hammurabi_(King_trans...

Likewise in pre-Columbian Mexico, as per the Florentine Codex:

“It was a crime to light a fire in the woods without permission, to cut down trees, to move boundary-markers, to take game from another man’s hunting trap and to steal crops from the fields. All these were crimes that could be punished by death.”

https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/ask-experts/which-were-t...