Democrats seethe over Teamsters’ decision to not endorse Kamala Harris
- By ThatRobGuy
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 25 Replies
No, I'm not saying the wage increase was the cause, I'm saying that the wage increase doesn't offset the other stuff in the minds of some folks.Sorry. You say this as if the 3$ minimum wage MAGICALLY Started this kind of shopping sprees and also, as if they were the cause.
The issue with that kind of theft cannot be simplified to say "not tough enough on crime". It's too expensive to live there so people choose that way to supplement their income. No it's not right.
But maybe the artificially inflated house market prices due to massive housing corporations buying up disproportionately huge swaths of the market has something to do with it. There are a litany of reasons and the "hard on crime' folk beat to one drum. But sadly, it's not always gonna work.
It's two separate sets of policy lanes.
It'd be like if a particular party
A) Pushed for firemen to get 15% raises
but also
B) Pushed to relax fire codes and restrictions that ended up making the firemen's jobs much more hectic and stressful than it already was.
Some would probably prefer to forego A, in order to not have to deal with the negative effects of B.
Recidivism with youth in "tough on crime" approach:
This data really shouldn't be a surprise.
This is a very interesting read that gives the "Broken windows" theory some merit but limited. It also provided several other possible reasons for New York's success through the 90s; including its' economic success.
Some people seem to think that "some people are just gonna steal"...and that's true. But a LOT of people really would rather not. I'd actually argue most people would rather not steal if they had access to jobs and salaries that supported them (though yes, I can accept that can also be a complicating factor).
Tough on crime fulfills the human need to seek justice. But it doesn't necessarily improve a society. Now, I also say that with having been to Singapore; the place where it's 1000$ fine to stick gum onto something or whatever. And my goodness, the place is orderly, clean...immaculate.
Firstly, from the footage I've seen of some of these mass lootings other things that are happening, it's not juveniles responsible for most of it, its opportunistic adults.
And while I can accept the fact that there are some down on their luck folks who probably feel like they have no choice, that sympathy is limited to people stealing necessities. If you look at some of the footage that local news outlets release of some of the "looting flash mob" occurrences that were happening, they weren't stealing bread and food staples, they were stealing non-essentials. There's no sympathetic tone warranted for a group of 6 people sprinting into a Sephora or Bath & Body words to steal body spray and lotions...or like the Best Buy incident in Cali where a group of a dozen people sprinted in, busted open the PS5 game case, and ran back out holding as many video games as they could carry.
There's a difference between what's pejoratively referred to as the "tough on crime" vs. being too soft on crime. While I would agree that someone shouldn't be getting 15 years in prison for stealing a blu ray player... at that same time, reducing it to a slap on the wrist "catch & release" misdemeanor with the rationale of "it's not that big a deal, the store owners have insurance, they can just file a claim". There was that story out of Philly where a Footlocker was looted twice in the same day, and there were some of the same people involved in both incidents. Which means they were caught, arrested, processed, and released back out into the wild and literally went back and hit the same store again that same day.
That indicates the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction.
To use an analogy. If a person gets caught drunk driving but didn't hurt anyone, a life sentence is obviously way too harsh...however, a slap on the wrist $50 fine and no further consequences beyond that would be way too soft.
Upvote
0