-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Progressives... how would you genuinely assuage fears about high crime?
- Thread starter Deleted member 4461
- Start date
this is a really broad brush though, as which progressive policies in question. Some, like new deal style anti-poverty measures and things like ensuring that a poor brown student has an equal chance to get into an elite university as a rich white one, are pretty obvious. They are also broadly popular, even with conservatives, because they promote and appeal to the American sense of equality.
but there's tons of stuff bubbling up from the non-profit/NGO swamp that's driven by donor ideology and/or rent-seeking that's not remotely considered proven
Even the Kerner Commission saw that many of the progressive policies now were what needs to be done. In 1968. Warnings that were unheeded.
Which emphasizes my point: a lot of people care less about if crime actually goes down and more about if they know the police are out beating down undesirables
I think this is largely it. White America (especially older and rural America never really wanted integration and reckoning with 400 years of slavery) and I think, or at least I've seen the sentiment expressed Black America knows this and doesn't believe it when people say we want to change.
by and large I think living patterns and the history of redlining will always be the biggest thing. white Americans are fine watching blacks on screen and on the field and voting for them but get super uncomfortable around brown people living near them. they're fine with the police "keeping the peace"
Why are people missing the point? How long does it take for these policies to lower crime? If I'm living in Brownsville or ENY and I'm falling asleep to gunshots tonight, how will you make me feel safe unless you're giving everyone in the hood 2K monthly checks?
This is so tone deaf. If I'm worried about my child coming home from school safely on Friday, I'm going to say fuck your data. That's why Eric Adams is probably going to be the next mayor of NYC.
It's not necessarily LESS policing, but BETTER policing that many of these people are concerned about.
Last edited:
In PA, not one Democrat actually ran on the incredibly obvious issue regarding Republican defunding of local 911 systems, which has massive and quantifiable knock on effects on every level of public safety, but they ended up trying to split the baby in a amorphous policy debate that the right can blame every single crime on.
Step one is actually having effective services in the first place, which should hopefully preclude step two, because if someone can't get help if they were jumped closing a store or something, they can at least get timely assistance.
Republicans will take fear and anxiety to the bank every single time, and fear doesn't cause people to think rationally. These problems start small; the Parking Authority couldn't be bothered when some meathead blocked an alley, Zoning couldn't look into a complaint against a landlord flaunting safety regulations, someone couldn't get to sleep because someone was ignoring the Noise Ordinance and they decided to do something about it: invariably the areas that need good government see poor government. The progressive argument must contend that government is good within its defined limits.
Step one is actually having effective services in the first place, which should hopefully preclude step two, because if someone can't get help if they were jumped closing a store or something, they can at least get timely assistance.
Republicans will take fear and anxiety to the bank every single time, and fear doesn't cause people to think rationally. These problems start small; the Parking Authority couldn't be bothered when some meathead blocked an alley, Zoning couldn't look into a complaint against a landlord flaunting safety regulations, someone couldn't get to sleep because someone was ignoring the Noise Ordinance and they decided to do something about it: invariably the areas that need good government see poor government. The progressive argument must contend that government is good within its defined limits.
Last edited:
You can probably just show graphs pointing out that crime is down, actually. The public isn't very graph-literate. Say you'll be tough on crime but just play with Excel for a bit so it looks like the slope is going down.
Meanwhile you get started on all the long term solutions while everyone is distracted by the graph that's missing years and stuff.
Meanwhile you get started on all the long term solutions while everyone is distracted by the graph that's missing years and stuff.
Until we have a reform system focused on reducing recidivism, crime will continue to be bad. Switching to a system focused on the above will not in anyway raise the current crime rate, but we still won't do it because we want to punish people who fuck up instead of teach them. And the way we punish people makes sure that they will HAVE to continue to commit even worse crimes to survive. It makes zero sense.
There's no graph that will disprove hearing gunshots when you're trying to sleep. This thread is a coalescence of why people are shocked that Adams is winning. Lmaoo.
I feel it's not just "what they want to hear", people have to right to be and feel safe immediately.
Crime usually hits the poor and poc disproportionately. This has created a rift between academic leftist voters who are eloquent, resourceful and set the agenda (living relatively sheltered lives) and the actual working class. My leftist party (self proclaimed worker's party) has almost no support among workers today because of this, and related disconnects.
Edit: There can, and should be policies for this not focused on punishment, as an alternative to the failed conservative ideas. Maybe broadly: Efficiently and immediately keep dangerous people from harming others as long as they are a threat, AND work to rehab them is a good starting point?
It's a bit concerning to dismiss concerns or talk about telling voters what they want to hear IMO.
Last edited:
Movies, warez, appz, and perhaps the most heinous crime of all, those YouTube download sites that let you take a YouTube URL and turn it into a MP3.
It's not though. Adams is probably winning the election for the same reason you see an uptick in minority gun ownership: people are afraid and want to feel safe, they think he'll do something to make them safer.
I obviously disagree that either one will make anyone safer, but the ideas makes sense when you look at it from their perspective. These people are concerned about the next three weeks and a reform that will take a decade to work isn't going to address their needs. We both know that poverty can drive crime, but even if we threw money at everyone right now it'd take years to really take effect. We saw the same thing with lead poisoning, once we got lead out of our environments crime started dropping. Problem is it took decades for it to bear fruit.
I don't like Adams, I've ranted about him on here and all over the place for weeks and weeks and weeks. At the same time, him winning, with the coalition he has, makes perfect sense.
If you cannot address someone's immediate needs then they will find someone who they think can do so. This isn't just a messaging issue, this is a "We need a band-aid to stop the bleeding while the root cause gets addressed" issue. All of us on the left know how to address the root causes of most crime, it's honestly rather simple, but it takes time. There needs to be a band-aid of some kind to address the issue in the here and now, we can't just look to the future and brush off the immediate moment. Doing that is how dudes like Adams win.
It's easy to say that working class communities want to feel safe and want immediate solutions. That's no a brainer. The contention comes when you offer status quo solutions that have already been tried that don't actually promote safety or harm reduction. And then we arrive back at square one the time the next election comes around. It's an endless cycle as long as we keep pretending that (more) police actually promotes safety in communities.
People should be concerned about being sold false promises, and people *know* they are false promises, but they are so scared of looking for alternatives that they rationalize and twist themselves into a pretzel to convince themselves and others that they aren't.
OP
OP
Sorry, I'm terrible at forum posts despite literally over a decade of experience...
Basically, in a previous post I suggested giving more money to police while also allocating money to long term programs. So I didn't mean "give them what they want to hear" in a dismissive way - I meant it literally.
Short term, not many policies make material change for safety. So the idea would be to give them the one that makes them FEEL safest in the short term, of all available options, and work on the long term.
I apologize if my post was dismissive.
Your initial question OP boils down to whether or not you believe in destiny. We are all a part of the past. Someone's death 500 years ago or someone being killed by police today effect the present day just the same. Someone was not allowed to be which roiled the space-time continuum. Were events supposed to happen, were they not? If it didn't would the child 500 years in the future be born (and do miraculous things/or not) if XYZ didn't die today by the hands of police? Probably not. It all evens out in the end if we're all facets of god.
If you want to change the police system...you yourself must become a police officer and gather up your best buds and show us how to do it the right way? That is the only answer as far as your initial question is concerned.
I'm progressive but I'm not stupid. The people of this time/timeline are not the brightest. You shouldn't be judging the world based on situational factors of what's happening right now in NYC or anywhere. It must be happening for a reason. I'm inclined to believe Tomorrow's Child rules the present day and thus it is all predetermined and we get to view it from the eyes/senses of our ego/being as we enfold to our true being. I ask myself how can something that doesn't exist control the present? My guess is as good as yours. Is time and matter just an illusion? Or perhaps the dead are only dead in my/our timeline but keep existing in their own? There's plenty of questions and the answers responded by today's "Leaders" of the political movements are not sufficient. They lack soul and are pure politics IMO for they know nothing (which in this fatalistic point of view is how it's supposed to be, today but not tomorrow?) Drink up for tonight we live in a shit timeline with shit leaders who lead shit people to their shit existence today and forever more??? Or is it the future leading us to some feeling of immateriality of shit happens make the best of it. The dark leads to the light. The light leads to the dark. You're the light OP. I'm the dark. Or is it the other way around? No one can tell anymore. If you could save George Floyd, like the bystanders who stood there had the chance to do, would you do it? Would you sacrifice your life(the cops would have shot you dead had you intervened) to save a life of someone you don't know? It's an interesting question the gods have thrown at us.
What's your answer? Take your time.
If you want to change the police system...you yourself must become a police officer and gather up your best buds and show us how to do it the right way? That is the only answer as far as your initial question is concerned.
I'm progressive but I'm not stupid. The people of this time/timeline are not the brightest. You shouldn't be judging the world based on situational factors of what's happening right now in NYC or anywhere. It must be happening for a reason. I'm inclined to believe Tomorrow's Child rules the present day and thus it is all predetermined and we get to view it from the eyes/senses of our ego/being as we enfold to our true being. I ask myself how can something that doesn't exist control the present? My guess is as good as yours. Is time and matter just an illusion? Or perhaps the dead are only dead in my/our timeline but keep existing in their own? There's plenty of questions and the answers responded by today's "Leaders" of the political movements are not sufficient. They lack soul and are pure politics IMO for they know nothing (which in this fatalistic point of view is how it's supposed to be, today but not tomorrow?) Drink up for tonight we live in a shit timeline with shit leaders who lead shit people to their shit existence today and forever more??? Or is it the future leading us to some feeling of immateriality of shit happens make the best of it. The dark leads to the light. The light leads to the dark. You're the light OP. I'm the dark. Or is it the other way around? No one can tell anymore. If you could save George Floyd, like the bystanders who stood there had the chance to do, would you do it? Would you sacrifice your life(the cops would have shot you dead had you intervened) to save a life of someone you don't know? It's an interesting question the gods have thrown at us.
What's your answer? Take your time.
first of all leftism didn't start there and its been widely spread around the world...
OP
OP
Kingdom Hearts... is light!
Anyways, to answer your post briefly: I wasn't necessarily asking about predestination. Nor good or evil.
The question was only how to bring the things we think will work into reality. To that end, are more conservative things a phase we have to get through in order to get closer to the goal? Maybe, maybe not. But that's part of the point of this discussion.
Seems like this should be the right approach. Sell that you will do stuff that will help in the short term (regardless if it actually does like everyone else is promising), but then also work on doing the long term fixes. Sometimes you just got to play the game with electoral politics.
I'd love to hear your answer OP. Would you save a bystander you know nothing about(as you wouldn't know anything about George Floyd as the events were going on or any victim of police brutality for that matter) or would you conform to the police are the authority yet never authorized a word! Katy Perry said it best with "Shut up and put your money where your mouth is." Not an attack on you OP. But if you want something done "right" you would have to do it yourself. Would you be the bystander doing the right thing or the police officer doing the right thing? If it's the former, what is it that's keeping you from the patrolling the police? You could start a new line of industry...Police Watchers, "We Watch The Watchers." If it's the latter, we all go home where we should be going at the end of each day(I believe in you OP). In my mind it doesn't matter. Events are going to unfold in some form or fashion. You could be Vermillion patrolling the streets of Vermillion, S.D. but you, yourself, ego, can't be everywhere. The events would happen elsewhere. Someone else would die. Which twist the predestination plot on its head. It is surely not predestination if the universe has a message it wants to convey and it doesn't give a damn how it wants to convey it. Vermillion S.D. is safe, Minneapolis, MN is not. ABC is safe, XYZ is dead.
No body should listen to me and with that said no one of should be here, any one of us. That's my view...unless we are supposed to be here(which we are because we're here) in which we should be accepting what's happening as some learning tool I suppose. Don't kill non-violent (black) people whether it be George Floyd, Elijah McClain, Walter Scott, etc... Don't kill period. That could go on into many tangents but the point is made...why do we are arm civilians? Why even do we arm police(which are the militias the 2nd amendment speaks of, not everyday paranoid Joe Blo's)? But what is death. If I don't have sex with Sandy this Thursday and we don't conceive...is that death? That potential soul will never be born. And that soul just by it's very being would change the very world. So I killed the world because Sandy didn't want to have sex me or I didn't want to have sex with Sandy. And there ya go...it's all a fool's game. No answer is right. No answer is wrong. It just is. But one must ask yourself why you're experiencing this particular life. Is it that the tide that brought you in brought others out? Or is it that you're the only one here interacting with other facets of one's self. When Chauvin and Co. killed Floyd. Did they do it because they were programmed to kill him? And that is where the OP has his/her most value. What are cops taught, who teaches them, what are they told about liability/responsibility. Chauvin's defense was absolute garbage but the only saving grace one could go about Chauvin's actions were his 3 imbecile buddies and how they followed him off the cliff (which from my recollection was never presented as evidence)...mainly because the Prosecution provided in vivid detail from many officers/chief how their actions were bunk....but still Chauvin got 3 officers to cow in fear to him as the leader.
There's a TED video how the first person to do something is not the leader. The second person is just as much, if not the leader...by following the initiators response (something about dancing on a hill....saw it many years ago). It is true from my experience. These dumbasses followed Chauvin, and proclaimed him leader. They're all guilty. Especially Tou Thao. Thao, Chauvin's every day partner, is a weak ass sorry state of a man. Ignoring the pleas of the bystanders. You could say Lane tried to resuscitate Floyd and was it Lane or Keung who said to flip Floyd over and acquiescing to Chauvin's response of "no." But Thao just sat there and heard from at least 5 different vocal civilians who said "you're killing him" and did nothing. George Floyd didn't die in vain nor did anyone else if people actually take action and hold those accountable accountable. Thao should rot just as long Chauvin. Thao was a follower and thus the leader. Keung and Lane should receive half their time as their should be an idiot newbie factor(which they both were) built into the system. Thao is guilty as fuck.
These guys could go down as heroes for their imbecile actions but only if the people hold them accountable. Is that what they signed up to do? What if George Floyd never came to Minnesota....he stayed in Houston or was such a great football player he made it to the NFL....? There are many variables. I really do believe if it wasn't Floyd, it would have been someone else(Chauvin was known to use his unauthorized maneuver before). The higher unseen powers want to teach. They'll find someone and they'll keep finding someone until our weakest dumbass(es), the conservative(s), get(s) the message. That is my belief.
Is Floyd dead? Or is he living it up in an/many other universe(s)....? That is my main question and one day I will find an answer.
I totally get your thoughts OP. Is it about the conservatives and the slow trudge of justice but I want to flip it and ask it is it about you OP? What would you do were you on a scene of police brutality? Would you film or go the extra step? That's what I want to know about you.
Last edited:
Serious crimes - homicides, shootings, etc - are up ludicrous amounts in the past 12 months in virtually every US city. Its down in more rural areas.
2020’s historic surge in murders, explained
We still don’t know why murders in the US rose so much. Here’s what we do know.www.vox.com
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22397066/lV8sp_the_2020_murder_surge_in_america_by_region__1_.png)
This is going to get reflected, as OP is worried, in a surge of pro-police, conservative politicians getting elected over the next few years as the progressive message of "give us time, we need to reform THE SYSTEM in order to choke the pipeline of crime" is going to be laughably over-ridden by messages of "defund the police is an incredibly stupid idea, we need to give the cops more money and hire more cops".
I mean the situation is layed out right in front of us, the President is the former author of the 1994 Crime Bill and Kamala Harris is the former california attorney general who has always been known as tough on crime. They know exactly what they need to say to win, and they will propagate that message through the ranks. Their only real opponent is someone like Ron DeSantis who wants to be even more tough on crime.
Progressives lost the war before it even started and most don't even realize it.
Great, albeit sad, post.
Do what conservatives do and use it as a pretext for all the things you actually want to do
- gun control
- Anti poverty policies
- Alternative community safety organizations
- Standardize National crime statistics and reporting
- Make police departments actually accountable for things like homicide and rape clearance rates
- Etc
Progressive DAs have been winning races in cities across the country for a little while now (and some of them have gotten re-elected since the COVID crime increases). And since District Attorney is an even more crime-centric position than mayor is, it's clear that there's some appetite for an approach to crime that isn't just about hiring more cops and ramping up the punishment. Adams' candidacy is kind of a perfect storm of events that I think might be hard to replicate. He's a black ex-cop with deep roots in the community and a decades-long record of being a public advocate for police reform. And the progressive showing in this campaign was really weak. I might be wrong, but I don't think there's going to be a lot of Adams-like candidates winning mayoral elections in other American cities. I mean, a Socialist won in Buffalo last night, and the candidate who won the Pittsburgh primary a few weeks ago isn't a radical but was definitely more progressive than the incumbent he beat. NYC mayor is the 2021 election with the largest profile, but we shouldn't extrapolate too much from it (especially since it's not even officially over yet).
Someone who knows more than me should be looking at the failed and successful progressive campaigns and figuring out what differentiates the two. I'm going to take an uniformed swing here and say that one thing progressives need to do is position their crime-reduction policies as crime-reduction policies. Like, instead of saying "I want to focus on reducing poverty" say "I want to reduce crime by reducing poverty." If you're pushing for non-police responses to mental health related issues don't just say "This is more humane" (which it is), also say "This will reduce violence and crime" (which it will). I feel like some progressives get wary talking about crime at all because they view it as a position where more conservative positions are more popular, but that's going to remain the case unless progressives actually say why their policies are better for lowering crime. People who live in neighborhoods with high crime rates also tend to live in neighborhoods with issues regarding poverty, homelessness, education, gun violence, and, of course, police violence. People can intuitively understand the connections between those things. Candidates just have to make it explicitly a part of their message. The only thing progressives shouldn't be doing is running from the issue and ceding the ground to moderates and conservatives (or adopting their policies in hopes of being more "electable"). When you don't act like you're taking crime seriously, people won't take you seriously on crime.
Someone who knows more than me should be looking at the failed and successful progressive campaigns and figuring out what differentiates the two. I'm going to take an uniformed swing here and say that one thing progressives need to do is position their crime-reduction policies as crime-reduction policies. Like, instead of saying "I want to focus on reducing poverty" say "I want to reduce crime by reducing poverty." If you're pushing for non-police responses to mental health related issues don't just say "This is more humane" (which it is), also say "This will reduce violence and crime" (which it will). I feel like some progressives get wary talking about crime at all because they view it as a position where more conservative positions are more popular, but that's going to remain the case unless progressives actually say why their policies are better for lowering crime. People who live in neighborhoods with high crime rates also tend to live in neighborhoods with issues regarding poverty, homelessness, education, gun violence, and, of course, police violence. People can intuitively understand the connections between those things. Candidates just have to make it explicitly a part of their message. The only thing progressives shouldn't be doing is running from the issue and ceding the ground to moderates and conservatives (or adopting their policies in hopes of being more "electable"). When you don't act like you're taking crime seriously, people won't take you seriously on crime.
OP
OP
I don't exactly know what this has to do with the thread, but I will respond in the same vein as your post:
I would do whatever I was going to do. Couldn't tell you much more than that.
Well there you go. Every body is just doing what they're programmed to do. Killers are programmed to kill. Asshats are programmed to assshat. Vermillions are programmed Vermillion. Can I or anyone else here change you? Can we change the killers or asshats? No? Well then.
Programmed by who? Out genes? Because genetics doesn't work that way.
I think the funniest part about this is that to be a right-winger, you can lay back and make no effort to validate the slogans shouted at you and just trust what you hear is a good position to have, but suddenly the moment you're on the left, you gotta fact-check that shit like you're writing your thesis on it? It's frankly a double-standard. It's not a matter of the right wing being easier, taking people on either side of the political spectrum at their word is easier, but it's clearly not applied universally.
EDIT: Hell, let me be blunt. The reason things are the way I outlined above is because politicians have been saying for as many decades as most of my living relatives have walked the earth that anything beyond the barest god-damn minimum is a fantasy, just propaganda to present the appearance that the glacial pace of bettering society is the best we can hope for, and the bulk majority of people (white people especially) fell for that garbage hook, line and sinker, to the point where "better things aren't possible" is uncritically proposed as the truth.
Last edited:
Why are you here? The easy answer is your parents brought you here. Why were your parents here? Because they existed. Why did they exist? Because they were chosen. Why were they chosen? Because their source was not dead. Why was the source not dead? Because people let them live(even in shit conditions). Why were they left to live? Because the events that preceded them...the wave the brought in their forbearers brought them into.
If you change one simple fucking instance in the cycle of life before you were born...you would not be here. Can we agree upon that? The world is a living being. The last time I looked the plants breathed and conditions were ripe for life as thus the planet breathed....hence why there's 7 billion people here. Does the death of one amongst the 7 billion humans change things? Damn straight it does. Life will never be the same (I'll throw the trademark to Haddaway). People die. This is not an ideal world yet we continue to live and not equivocate our existence by self mutilation because? We love. The same wave that brought us in is the same wave that killed some body today. Try to prove that's not the case? You can't! Which doesn't mean the claim is true but certainly doesn't mean it's not. Your existence didn't cause the death. It was some malfunction of some individual whether it be the deceased or a murderer. Did our genes program decay? No. But the conditions of who was alive and who was not certainly did. Is Derek Chauvin a murderer if George Floyd was never born? A question not many dare to ask...but one that must be asked. Yes, I'd say he is. He proved it on this side. Whether George Floyd existed Derek Chauvin is a killer. He didn't need to kill George Floyd....his tactics before Floyd were the same, knee on the neck he's done before....he would have killed someone eventually. Who's to blame? Chauvin, the city of Minneapolis (which they settled with the family for....27 million(is that what a life is worth?) amongst other ill deeeds. You are to blame. I am to blame. The same wave that brought Chauvin and Floyd into out lives brought me and you as well. So what's the lesson learned? Don't kill you? But am I killing you with these words? Am I killing you if I say nothing? There's the rub. Try answering that one. It's impossible. This has little to do with genetics and everything to do with the world we leave behind. Did you or I want this to be our legacy? Out of control cops???? No. Not on my end at least....so then why do they exist....to prove some example to the world at large that we're all equal. The cop is not better than the bystander. The nazi is not better than the Jew. And in a strange twist of fate the righteous is not better than the meek. So why don't I post(much)? Because as Depeche Mode says(ironic), words are meaningless and forgettable. Yet here lay a temple to words and thoughts and not a soul embracing what is offered. Good night and good luck.
Ok I don't know how to respond to this. But good night and good luck to you too.
Oh and you should definitely post more.
There's literally an entire episode of CN dedicated to this thing.But small business are saying the same thing
'I'm so fed up': With shoplifting all too frequent in Hayes Valley, some merchants are at wits' end
Hayes Valley is a haven for shoppers and al fresco diners, but trendiness and an...www.sfchronicle.com
News Brief: "Organized Crime" "Shoplifting Epidemic" Panic Hits San Francisco Media
In this public News Brief, we take a critical look at a recent wave of sensationalist "Organized Crime" "Shoplifting Epidemic" stories in national and Bay Area media and how they fit into a resurgent
soundcloud.com
Absolutely. I don't have the expertise to offer true progressive solutions, nor experience of living in really exposed/unsafe areas or situations. I'd like to see policies that appoint well intentioned experts who are willing to engage and listen to the people in the communities and minorities that are suffering the most.
No need to apologise, thanks for elaborating. And I agree, it's true that symbolic gestures/policies can make a difference as well.
Yup this is exactly what I mean narrative. The right wing can craft a narrative that local pharmacies are closing because of shoplifters and grandma and grandpa can't get their medicine despite all evidence being to the contrary.There's literally an entire episode of CN dedicated to this thing.
News Brief: "Organized Crime" "Shoplifting Epidemic" Panic Hits San Francisco Media
In this public News Brief, we take a critical look at a recent wave of sensationalist "Organized Crime" "Shoplifting Epidemic" stories in national and Bay Area media and how they fit into a resurgent
It's been already been touched upon in this thread but the progressive problem is that while their long term solutions work, short term solutions are still vital as long as politics function in election cycles and progressives are generally really bad at offering them. People evaluate politicians by what they think their policies do while they are holding office, not by what their policies might do in future. I don't think that mindset is going anywhere.
A good UBI system, something that actually gives money, on their bank account, directly, with as less bureaucracy as possible so that it is accessible to people who haven't had education, disabled, etc etc. An UBI of a quantity of money that lets that person get back on their feet, not just pay for 1/4 or 1/2 of their rent. Everywhere.
Decriminalization of certain crimes. No, the person who stole food on their supermarket or petrol station doesn't deserve to go to prison. Through this and UBI help young men from minorities (who tend to be the ones left out from the economical system and in turn veer towards crime) educate themselves, get jobs, and not fall into a cycle of depression+not having a future=cycle of violence.
A good healthcare system. That is not attached to whether you currently have a job or not. Are you registered as a citizen in this country, foreigner or native? Then you have access to healthcare. That healthcare has things like glasses, nutrition, mental health.
And you might ask "Sure, but those take a long time":
I don't think so. I don't think that a UBI takes a long time, a proper one at that. Here in Spain we have a "Ingreso Minimo Vital" (NOT AN UBI), for the most vulnerable. It's very much still shit ((there's a reason I pointed out the quantity of money given in the UBI), but if done well and DIRECTLY it changes the life of the family immediately.
If the governments wants it done, it can be done. But you need the want.
Decriminalization of certain crimes. No, the person who stole food on their supermarket or petrol station doesn't deserve to go to prison. Through this and UBI help young men from minorities (who tend to be the ones left out from the economical system and in turn veer towards crime) educate themselves, get jobs, and not fall into a cycle of depression+not having a future=cycle of violence.
A good healthcare system. That is not attached to whether you currently have a job or not. Are you registered as a citizen in this country, foreigner or native? Then you have access to healthcare. That healthcare has things like glasses, nutrition, mental health.
And you might ask "Sure, but those take a long time":
I don't think so. I don't think that a UBI takes a long time, a proper one at that. Here in Spain we have a "Ingreso Minimo Vital" (NOT AN UBI), for the most vulnerable. It's very much still shit ((there's a reason I pointed out the quantity of money given in the UBI), but if done well and DIRECTLY it changes the life of the family immediately.
If the governments wants it done, it can be done. But you need the want.
Obviously many solutions are long term, but I do feel certain policies making it easier for people with past records to get jobs (possibly combined with a government job program directly designed to get them those jobs ASAP) would probably produce some level of results immediately because people who had no real choice but to resort to crime would now have options. And because these options would keep them busy and off the streets it would further reduce their opportunity to commit crimes. It obviously wouldn't solve all the problems but the idea that improving people's situations is something that can only happen long term is dumb, there are plenty of changes that could be done immediately and produce results relatively quickly. As opposed to the current methods which aren't actually producing short term results in the first place either and are probably making things worse in the long run
I would definitely point out that saying "we should defund the police" or "we should spend differently on policing" or whatever is not the same as actually doing those things. In reality we have been supporting and increasing police funding, yet despite that people still feel crime is up. So is that money well spent? Should we consider changing tactics? I feel like how you discuss this with people changes based on why they believe crime is up in the first place.