I’ve certainly considered it. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do what you suggest on their owns as good ideas. What I don’t buy is the idea that those are the solution to crime. Even in the most progressive society crime happens and there is a need for LE.
See i have a question about this what can she be charged with if she didn't go into the store or is it that just being their the crime .Also his BLM rioter meatball arressted is a bad title this has nothing to do with BLM this a case of crooks stealing .
The best part that destroyed my eyes was 1:30 in the video my game friend was pressured by her father to move from Morocco to Saudi Arabia after the quake, (her mother lived there and she just graduated college) she is afraid to go outside because she dislikes wearing the hijab now that she is in the Gulf…they don’t play …I don’t think Americans realize how good we have it and maybe we should act a little bit more civilized lest we take for granted how rights can be infringed for real
You people are so out of touch with reality, the ability to do basic class analysis is outside of your ability.
Not really my industry, so I don't know, but it doesn't strike me as a significant factor. I don't expect it's made it into the petty criminal's decision algorithm -- 'X% chance I get caught, Y% chance they decide prosecute me instead of letting me go, and then a Z% chance I get a long jail sentence.' I'd bet most people would only think about the chance of getting caught. (But, yeah I know, the tinmans think woke prosecutors in woke states let all the criminals run amok, I get it. But prosecutors making smash-and-grabs a priority is easy to implement.)
One other thing we need to consider is that progress in a lot of social issues such as addressing housing, can’t really happen unless most of the population feels safe. so while yes addressing social issues like endemic poverty, education, etc. may help with overall crime it is difficult to politically address those of most of the population feels unsafe.
They are focusing on it - at least they are in Chicago. They are organized through social media and it can be hard, because they can be sent to each other through their "friends" list or on Snap Chat. So someone from the PD needs to get on that "friends list" or have someone on the list inform them. I know in Chicago that there is also a strong gang element and geographical element. Gangs are extremely prevalent in Chicago, and many people that live in the inner city are loosely associated to gang members because they are friends and relatives. So for example, Garfield Park is mostly made of one gang, and in Chicago people in the city tend to not stray far from their neighborhood. So it is easy for someone that is in a gang to decide that they are going to go into downtown on Friday or Saturday night and rob a store, and to improve their chance to get away with it - they get all the gang members to invite everyone they know on social media - and those not in gangs know that they are also not likely to be arrested........ at first they did it because no one was being arrested, police would stand down. Now the police arrest people, but the chance of being arrested is so small because there are so many people. I have been in downtown Chicago several times when a huge mob of people gathered and then started robbing everyone one the street or vandalized or broke into a store or cars. For some reason they have never tried to rob me. My guess is because I could see it developing and I made sure I was in a safe spot - but I have seen a lot of tourists robbed. This was happening 5-6 times a summer in Chicago but it stopped even making the news.
Chicago in the inner city is pretty good about having Pre-K available for children. Chicago also is very good about providing free and low income housing, and most of the housing is actually clean and nice and modern. A lot of money is put into it and a lot of the housing is in prime real estate areas in Chicago. In Chicago virtually all of those that are committing crime in the inner city have free healthcare and see private doctors. The problems extend beyond that - there are broken homes, readily available drugs and guns, there are very deep rooted street gangs, a lack of jobs and instability at home. Also for some young people, once they start banging, it is very hard to get out of the lifestyle because it can be exciting and no real responsibilities. Asking a 20 year old young man in the inner city if he wants to work at a grocery store or hangout with his buddies after waking up at noon, sleep with and abuse women, make easy money and run the streets where adults are scared of you is an easy call. I agree with you on about 80% of what you say - I agree that housing should be a right, that no one should go hungry and everyone should get health care...... and those all are very important to SOCIETY and empathy. However - a lot of these kids that are looting already have those things, but they are surrounded by violence, they have PTSD and have culturally lived a different life than most people, in many cases they have multiple direct relatives dead or in prison and they learn their values from older brothers or friends in the neighborhood... it is Lord of the Flies.
Yes - between the ages of 0-4 is when children are the most impressionable and learn the most from those that are their caregivers. Empathy and consequence for example are largely learned. After about age 6 children are more influenced by their friends and peers. The problem is that in many cases, between the ages of 0-4 these children are in homes where there is poor relationships and emotional security and also, there is a degree of neglect as well. When you have a 19-20 year old mother mistakes are more easily made, and a transient father does not help. Having some Pre-K would help some - but the truth is that this country needs to value early childhood development more. Now many women work outside the home, fathers when present do as well. Why? Because of money and now the culture of the country. This "experience" for ages 0-4 cannot be solved by the government with childcare and having basic childcare does not effectively work, these children need one one one constant attention, which is incredibly expensive and time consuming if the state were to try and provide it. The government would be better off encouraging people to wait to have children, and give financial incentives for mothers to stay home while their children are so young. There really isn't any way around it - and we are about to feel the crush of childcare for those over 4, as the money Biden gave to support childcare is almost gone, and childcare is a VERY difficult and expensive undertaking. So we are going to see a lot of kids get inadequate care.
