Good cities can't exist without public order

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/good-cities-cant-exist-without-public

by paulpauper • 2 years ago

33 42 2 years ago

newsclues2• 2 years ago

We need a solution for judges who let criminals out into the streets to reoffend.

I bet if the catch and release criminals were sent to live in the gated communities and high security condo buildings, the judges would be less inclined to let people out to reoffend.

code_for_monkey• 2 years ago

we need to arrest the white collar criminals that live in the gated communities too

anovikov2• 2 years ago

Problem here is prison capacity. U.S. needs a very large, cheap, ideally profitable imprisonment system to keep all those people in - akin to Soviet gulags. Otherwise catch-and-release is unavoidable unless you just machinegun them - prisons are already overloaded and are extremely expensive to maintain.

anonym295• 2 years ago

The "ideally profitable" part you're looking for are called "private prisons", and they come with a host of side effects that are nothing short of horrific. When a corporation becomes incentivized to strip people of their freedom (regardless of whether they do it correctly or incorrectly), bad outcomes occur.

neaden• 2 years ago

America has one of the most punitive judicial systems in the world and sentences people for longer then any peer country. Instead of doubling down on what's not working, why not look and see what is working other places.

noodlesUK3• 2 years ago

I hear the argument that we need "harsher punishment" pretty much every time any kind of social problem gets discussed in media.

I don't think that the US lacks harsh punishment at all - compared to peer countries, prison conditions are terrible, the incarcerated population is massive, etc.

What I do agree with is that enforcement feels ineffective. Every time a criminal commits an offence, they are spinning a roulette wheel and hoping it doesn't land on "go to prison". Making sentences longer and conditions worse doesn't change the odds that a particular criminal will end up punished, it just means the downside is worse (and increases prison populations). Even when a criminal is caught, they're often bailed and able to abscond. The question should be how to increase the effectiveness of enforcement whilst preserving rights and protections against wrongful punishment.

The other side of the equation is looking at the carrot, not just the stick. If life sucks and people turn to criminality because they feel like they don't live in a society that gives a damn, you have to improve society so people have something to live for.

I think a lot of this weirdly needs to be "vibes based policy" as it were. People need to believe that justice will be done in order to feel secure, and to feel that if they were to commit a crime that they wouldn't get away with it. Objective reality doesn't control behaviour, peoples' beliefs do.

newsclues2• 2 years ago

I’m not American but I’m pretty sure you have the same social justice (or lack there of) that enables certain types of criminals to avoid repercussions and continually reoffend.

anonym295• 2 years ago

Democracy is what gave us these judges. Are you proposing limitations on the ability of the public to elect the officials they want to elect?

jltsiren• 2 years ago

Judges can be elected officials, political appointees, or career civil servants. America prefers the first two options, but the third option with less political judges is also worth considering.

Thorrez• 2 years ago

Are there sentencing guidelines for judges? Do those guidelines recommend letting the criminals back out, or are the judges going against the guidelines?

kerkeslager7• 2 years ago

If you want prison to be used to keep criminals off the streets, then you have to be willing to put criminals in prison for life for even the most minor offenses, because that's the extent you have to go to for this strategy to work.

I mean can you give any non-absurd answer how you think this works? Someone knocks over a liquor store with a box cutter: is there some magic number of years in prison that they can be released where they won't reoffend?

Every piece of evidence I've seen indicates that the opposite happens: people in prison are traumatized further exacerbating mental illness, connected with other criminals, and then released with a criminal record that makes it even harder for them to obtain legal employment, making crime even more attractive. This effect is generational: children separated from their parents by prison time are more likely to end up in prison themselves. Your "solution" doesn't solve crime, it causes crime.

Not only does your "solution" not work, it's ethically repulsive. The vast majority of crimes are crimes of desperation, and you are so self-absorbed that you're only concerned with solving your own problem--crime--and totally unconcerned with the suffering which causes people to commit crime in the first place. Your only solution is to cause even more suffering by locking people up and throwing away the key.

The causes of crime are economic, and crime will continue until that problem is addressed. It's not hard to see that if you have any care at all for your fellow humans.

Cheer2171• 2 years ago

Ending an article halfway if you aren't a subscriber is a huge "fuck you" to the reader and lands this domain on my blocklist.

noodlesUK3• 2 years ago

Yeah, this paywall is both hard and niche. The normal tricks don't work, and I'm not going to pay ~100USD per year for a single random substack...

gjsman-1000• 2 years ago

I think you would be shocked at how effective stupid techniques like this, and other marketing strategies, actually are.

maybelsyrup• 2 years ago

There are many ways to decide to not read this writer, and they're all good!

nati0628• 2 years ago

Wealth inequality causes social disorder. All those other non American cities exist in places with more robust social safety nets and have fewer billionaires/less overt corporate control of the government. This is a fundamental truth of human society.

anonym295• 2 years ago

I grew up poor and that didn't magically compel me to initiate acts of violence or disrespect the property rights of other people. It gave me the motivation to work my ass off to get myself to where I am today.

Individuals making a conscious and deliberate choice to commit violence or property crime is the cause of social disorder. Nobody's a robot without free will.

bpodgursky3• 2 years ago

Have you ever been to a large East Asian city? You should look into the income inequality in those cities — and the amount SF spends on social safety nets — and you may be surprised.

kerkeslager7• 2 years ago

How much money does SF spend on giving the homeless homes? Not shelters, homes.

How much money does SF spend on making sure people can get medical care without going into debt? When I went to the SF General emergency room after after a bike accident, I walked out with a just under $2500 bill, which would have been financially crippling for someone of less financial means.

SF spends a massive amount of money on social safety nets that don't fundamentally address problems, because they don't have the political will to implement cheaper solutions that actually solve the fundamental problems.

Put another way, SF spends a lot of money on feel-good programs, and very little on actual social safety nets.

AnthonyMouse• 2 years ago

Trying to pin this on "wealth inequality" is misdirection. Amazon having a large market cap and Jeff Bezos owning a significant fraction of the shares isn't really what caused any of this.

The real issue is poverty, and in turn cost of living. People can't afford housing, become desperate, crime increases. But trying to fix this with "safety nets" is basically "let them eat cake" unless you have a way to fund it, and trying to fund it while the prices are still so high means the government can't afford it either, whereas if you were to adopt policies that lowered housing prices then that would be the solution in itself.

But now you need to make that happen in San Francisco.

Aloisius• 2 years ago

Criminality is a social contagion.

Wealth inequality, frankly, has little to do with it.

af3d• 2 years ago

Blame it on bad culture. Good people know that orderly conduct is necessary to maintain a healthy and vibrant community. Just take a look at the Nordic countries where this used to be the absolute norm across the board. Now even there you see quite a bit of social turmoil. Many who have migrated to these countries over the years simply do not share the same values and the effects are sadly self-evident. People do not feel nearly as safe as they once did. It may not be as bad as the average American city, mind you, but there has nonetheless been a real change in the "atmosphere". (Which isn't to say "all migrants are bad". Unvetted immigration is the issue I am referring to here.) Point is, wealth-inequality has nothing to do with it.

mbgerring• 2 years ago

The proposed solution for “public order” matters a lot. If your solution sounds like “we should dump even more money into SFPD so that paranoid residents of Walnut Creek will feel safer riding BART to go shopping in Union Square, whether or not more police actually make them safer,” no one is going to support this.

Unfortunately, thanks to the paywall, we have no idea what the proposed solution actually is.

jeffbee• 2 years ago

The central thesis of the post is false to the degree that I can't be bothered with the rest of it. "general disorder discourage locals from supporting public transit" just clearly does not apply to San Francisco, the main subject of the rest of it. San Francisco has passed every Muni bond measure and tax for the last 50 years. Half a million people ride Muni every day. The people of SF do support transit.

Tade0• 2 years ago

Transit, especially if it’s made free or if fare-jumping is easy, allows both criminals and drugged-up disorderly types to reach otherwise peaceful neighborhoods. And since apartment complexes A) are cheaper to live in than single-family houses, and B) usually come with inclusionary zoning requirements that require any new complex to include some poor tenants, they also mean more poor people in the neighborhood.

The author identified the symptoms, but fell short of finding the cause.

Drug dealers typically live in well-connected areas as they have people come to them, not the other way around. And they can afford to, since it's a risky, but lucrative profession.

All those "disorderly types" are not drugged up (at least not enough) - they're on their way to get their fix. If they had enough they would be at home, being all drugged up without a care in the world.

It's a difficult problem because those who survived long enough in this line of work learned how to not draw attention to themselves from both the law and their competitors.

motohagiography2• 2 years ago

"Transit, especially if it’s made free or if fare-jumping is easy, allows both criminals and drugged-up disorderly types to reach otherwise peaceful neighborhoods."

This is not just public transit either. I live in a rural area about 20mins drive north of an exurb, and the peace we make out here is very desirable. We try to resist the paving of roads because it just brings more traffic from people who don't live here or contribute to the local economy or culture. The conversations I have with people coming out to the "middle of nowhere," to drag race, trade drugs, loiter, vandalize, dump litter, and have public sex in front of my farmhouse often end with reminding them the reason they like it out here is because nobody here does the stuff they're doing here. If you like it, treat it better.

What makes these places desirable (anywhere) is the people who live here, and by observing norms, you can be welcome in them. If you go anywhere with a load of garbage in your head about why people should want to be around you and put up with your indulgent nonsense, don't be surprised when they are unenthusiastic, or make a point of walking out and telling you so.

It's like someone bringing a 50W subwoofer on a backcountry canoe trip. It's purpose is to despoil its environment. Terms like NIMBY are thought terminating cliches and epithets that people in cities with no responsibility for their communities use to spoil the environments they envy for others. Instead of advocating for the destruction of peaceful neighbourhoods and environments, why not try making yourself welcome in them instead.

Kon-Peki• 2 years ago

Yeah, well when I lived in the urban center everyone complained after festivals and other events where the suburbanites would descend and treat the city like their trash can.

Perhaps the real issue are all the lifeless, boring suburbs creating oppressed people that need an outlet.

motohagiography2• 2 years ago

tourism of most kinds isn't really sustainable and it's an economic vice that is unhealthy for everyone involved. a sound tourism strategy anywhere would really focus on sports and arts participation driven travel instead of loafing and circuses.

the public order angle is that you have to take responsibility for your own neighbourhoods because if you don't they're just going to go to shit.

johnea• 2 years ago

I have a hard time believing that anyone actually wants to live in a society of true "anarchy". I'm not even sure what people mean when they talk about it, and I've tried asking several "advocates" of "anarchy" what they mean, and I've never received a satisfactory answer. Just general examples of the wrongs perpetrated by our current society.

Not only "good cities", but even HN's beloved "free markets" are completely dependent on a government enforcing rule of law.

So, as usual, both the wingnut libertarians, and the wokenut anarchists are out in the weeds. With neither expressing rational policy, and both being completely devoid of acknowledging physical reality.

A society based on rule of law is essential for any form of civilization. The fairness of that society will be wholly dependent on how uniformly and fairly that rule is applied and enforced.

At present we have very poor uniform enforcement in the US, and that's leading to a LOT of social maladies, but that is not a rational reason for eliminating rule of law, it's a reason to reform it.

Good cities can't exist without public order

Related Stories