How did New York deal with crime in the late 90s? Not by ignoring it.
Do you think the problem is too much transparency? To use your example of the NYPD in the 90's (though I think you've probably got the wrong part of the decade if you're looking for the high water mark of crime), was it notably less corrupt than it is today, or was it just more opaque?
But how did the NYPD deal with crime in the 90's? Wasn't it by the kinds of privacy abuses called out in this report? By shaking down suspected criminals through stop and frisk?
Violent crime in NYC dropped precipitously with the “Broken Windows” style of law enforcement during Giuliani’s terms as mayor (1994-2002). The advertised theory was to enforce even small crimes like property owners leaving broken windows unrepaired. Hypothetically, the expectation that laws are being enforced makes people more likely to obey laws at all levels. (jokingly: or maybe people were so busy coming into compliance that they ran out of time for murder.)
There’s obviously debate, criticism, etc., regarding the cause but the theory has been applied to programming among other places with some success.
Actually, pretty much yes, or at least, that would have been a better strategy than some Giuliani BS.
Crime declined nation wide, and it had nothing to do with any local policies. My favorite theory is that leaded gasoline was causing crime spikes. But there are competing theories, and I think people have concluded that it isn't a single factor.
One coworker was mugged and beaten. Walked up to cops. They told him if he wasn’t gone in 30 seconds they’d take him in on a PI.
Crime doesn’t exist if it’s unreportable.
On the upper end, if you have no priors and your career and family will be blown up because you want to do a political favor for someone that results in destroying the public trust, it probably does matter.
Given how frequently this happens I wouldn’t be so sure. You also have to care about destroying the public trust and this is literally a thread about yet another instance of the FBI destroying public trust. Also, you don’t have to have a corrupt intent to take actions that destroy public trust.
Incarcerations isn't the only form of punishment.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Here is the list for 2021 from Wikipedia. There are only two "first-world" countries there.
At least 18 countries performed executions in 2021:[13][36][37]
Americas (1 country): United States (11)
Asia-Pacific (5 countries): Bangladesh (5), China (unknown), Japan (3), North Korea (unknown), Vietnam (unknown)
Europe (1 country): Belarus (1+)
Middle East and North Africa (8 countries): Egypt (83+), Iran (314+), Iraq (17+), Oman (unknown), Saudi Arabia (65), Syria (24+), UAE (1+), Yemen (14+)
Sub-Saharan Africa (3 countries): Botswana (3), Somalia (21+), South Sudan (9+)In decades of considering State privacy abuses and their roots, I haven't come across an analysis that so succinctly encapsulates the whole of causes+outcomes as this one. It is one of the most Modern America things I have ever read.
A lot of people think the other way around, where it's unfathomable that anyone would commit a crime of their own volition were it not for the weight of an unjust world upon them.
One way to do that is to make it clear that committing a crime is very likely going to result in punishment, which is what the US does.
I'd argue that some people have incentives to ignore the systematic reasons behind crime. Slave labor in the US is partly dependent on prisoners. Crime keeps people fearful and distrustful of each other. Crime is used to justify increased control and monitoring of the public and the abuse of prisoners. Crime enables a huge underclass of Americans who pay taxes but aren't allowed to vote. Sadistic cowards keep politicians elected who are "tough" on criminals and they vote against things we know would actually reduce crime whenever those solutions aren't also needlessly cruel.
The law equally applies to everyone, no matter the reason for it.
For this statement to hold, it requires the most absurd definition of "punitive" imaginable.
There are countries where talking negatively about the wrong people is grounds for execution.
There are countries where theft is punished by amputation of a limb.
There are countries where not flushing a public toilet that you used, is a punishable offense.
All of these countries are much more punitive, and almost all of them have much less crime than the United States.
The four countries with a higher per capita population are: El Salvador, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, and Cuba. (Omitting American Samoa, because that's a US territory).
None of those are major countries, so the statement "The US is the most punitive major country in the world" absolutely holds water.
If you want an idea of how crazy high incarceration rates are in the states, just compare the prison population per 100,000 inhabitants with its neighbors:
Canada - 85
Mexico - 174
USA - 505
China's prison population is lower, but they have "administrative detention" which isn't included.
How to lie with statistics.
This is the same for many other countries but not the case for the US. Also your first two examples applies to really small list of countries (Iran and S.A.) and their current governments are the disgrace of the world and are not really an example to take (like going too extreme and something the US shouldn't "I guess" be compared too).