General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf a 19% drop in crime accompanies the indiscriminate detention of 19% of the population . . . .
. . . . what have you accomplished?
Fuck you, Arpaio.
My stats may be off, but no doubt my point is clear.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You don't have to lock up the criminals to stop crime. There are other approaches.
For example, a crime has a criminal and a victim. So, if you lock up a prospective victim, then it prevents a crime. Locking up the criminal afterward doesn't prevent the crime.
So, why lock up the future victim instead of the criminal?
Simple.
The criminal might be dangerous and hard to catch. The victim is easy - practically by definition, really.
So, to prevent more crime at lower cost and risk, it is easier and just as effective to simply lock up people who would otherwise end up being innocent victims of something.
RKP5637
(67,030 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)But the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if some idiot governor some time down the road proposes such an idea and gets enough backing from fellow idiots to make it law
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)did you.