Vicarious punishment is the worst method of behavior deterrence. People won’t stop fare dodging out of a small amount, not even a huge amount, or even if almost all of fare dodgers were caught. They will just become selective and apply different strategies to dodge the fare. It’s a fallacy to think that the existence of a punishment for a crime automatically decreases said crime incidence in the whole population. We know this to not be true (looking at abortion statistics over here).
Police presence is a deterrence, only and exclusively in those areas and time frames when they are present, and even then only partially (people still commit crimes, even when the police is present). We know that there’s no magical patrol coverage that deters crime completely. People will just do the crime, when and where the police isn’t looking and get creative about it. Not even permanent surveillance deters crime completely or permanently (UK’s mass surveillance didn’t even put a dent on their crime rates).
It might be true that some people who dodge fares can pay them. But to assume that it is not an undue financial pressure on some individuals is misguided and cruel. We already know what it needs to be done to reduce fare dodging, increase the service quality. When the value of the public transport is regarded as better than what’s charged, people are less likely to try to dodge the fare. But if the service is de-funded, installations dirty and derelict, slow, infrequent and on top of all of that the police is there to fuck you for fare dodging instead of making it safe for all users. Then people will consider it not worth their money. Adjacent to this, student, commuters, elder, children, job-seekers and disability subsidies on transport also increase people’s perception of the quality of the service. This all together reduces fare dodging way, way more than any punishment.
The NY Metro actually did it once, they cleaned the graffiti, repaired stations, fixed lightning and subsidized certain groups. It dropped not just the fare dodging but all crime inside the metro, faster than the state’s crime rate drop overall. But Giuliani shelved the project eventually because subway is for poor people and poor people don’t deserve quality services, apparently. Again, the cruelty seems to be the point.
Bro, I just spent the past two weeks in Vienna Austria and Budapest Hungary.
Vienna especially has a very good subway system that can get you nearly anywhere in the city.
There are ticket kiosks everywhere.
There are no turnstiles.
You just purchase a ticket and go on. You can get anything from a 1 ride pass to a monthly pass.
Nobody checks tickets.
There are also trams that run above ground all over the city. Same thing.
There are kiosks on the tram, but nobody checks your ticket.
And you can get 1 ride or 1 month tickets and anything in-between.
Budapest is “eastern Europe” where people are definitely poorer in general, but even there, there was nothing like what I am used to seeing in NYC. No police everywhere, no crime, and also, they don’t check your transit tickets.
Generally, the issue of not being able to afford a ticket is an American phenomenon. Actual developed countries don’t have the problems with homelessness or poverty that we have in the US.
Generally, dishonesty is a cultural issue. I had a German guy stay with us in the US for a few months. One time we were discussing what would happen if - for example - one were to pass a car on the right in Germany, what would the fine be? He didn’t know, but not for the reason you’d expect. His reply was basically, “No, you must not do this, the car will move to the right to let you pass!”. He simply could not fathom someone cruising in the left lane in Germany. And after visiting Austria, I cannot either. Cars DO actually move over to the right the instant they have passed a car. The left lane is kept open, even in heavy traffic. Full stop. Same with paying subway fares. They pay the fares. It is not even comprehensible to NOT pay the fares. They give you every opportunity to do the proper thing. They trust that you will do the right thing since that is so engrained into the cultural identity. Also, only a very small percentage of crime that is committed is not out of a place of desperation. If you have a well paying job, a strong government safety net, and a culture of following laws, people just generally behave. There is no need to have police standing around “deterring” people from commiting crimes.
This doesn’t work if you have a clash of cultures, though. How do you enforce that on people with a different culture and is that even okay?
For example, I read books to and with young kids in the local library once a month to help them learn the language (German). I have a hard time explaining to some of them and their parents(!) that it’s not okay to just take the books and, for example, sell them online.
I had a discussion with a woman who took an entire stack of identical books and she thought, since no one is checking her bags and she can easily take them, why shouldn’t she?
The same with rules for walking over a red light or driving your bike like a crazy person. There is no police in sight, why shouldn’t you walk over a red light or speed through the shopping street?
Cultural rules seem to be good on a first glance. But they are a fickle thing. And people who aren’t used to them are confronted with potential pitfalls.
You need police and fines because at one point just relying on cultural norms won’t work anymore. Police can be done much better, though. And instead of fines people should use community service more.
That is why I wrote community service as the better solution.
There is nothing to educate about why people shouldn’t steal the books from the library to sell them just because “no one checks my bags”. At that point, talking doesn’t work. Believe my, I tried. Having to work for the community might work, because it has a chance of giving the feeling of accomplishment and belonging when done right.
The only other thing that works is to ban her and her kid from the library when they keep stealing books. Which isn’t a good solution at all.
You have a fixation with hurting people, you just think that community service is the acceptable punishment in this case. Education is the solution. Just because you suck at talking to people outside of your culture doesn’t make it automatically ok to hurt them because you are too bigoted to understand how it is properly done.
Well then enlighten me. Since you are obviously a gentle and empathetic being, who is perfect in dealing with people (I got that from your answer, between the lines).
Tell me what I should tell the woman and her kid the next time I see her (25.02. very likely) and I will bring you back their exact response.
You should punch the kid in the face, set the lady’s hair on fire, and maybe cut a finger or two, before putting a ball and chain on the kid and forcing him to years of sweeping streets so he learns your culture of kindness, sharing and community, by force if necessary. And when he invariably fails due to institutionalization and abuse, deport them back to their country of origin with barely the clothes on their back.
Or you could, you know, say hello, and engage in genuine conversation like a fucking normal human being, showing genuine curiosity and respect. Understand their background and culture and figure the bests strategies to articulate their values with your culture’s values to establish a common ground where the principles and purposes of your rules and laws make sense to both.
Police only deter crime in their immediate area. I’m talking a radius of feet, not miles. Crime just moves to a different area. They are a less effective deterrent and more expensive than than a good camera system.
Police react to crime afterwards. The main things that prevent crime are money, respect, a sense of purpose, education, etc. A church, a basketball court, or an office building do more to deter crime than a police officer, and are much cheaper.
The assumption that people don’t pay the fare because they can’t pay the fare is a flimsy one.
Catching a relatively small number of people who didn’t pay the fare keeps many more people honest. The main purpose of the police is deterrence.
Police on the subway also deter other sorts of crime with their presence.
Except all your assumptions are wrong.
Vicarious punishment is the worst method of behavior deterrence. People won’t stop fare dodging out of a small amount, not even a huge amount, or even if almost all of fare dodgers were caught. They will just become selective and apply different strategies to dodge the fare. It’s a fallacy to think that the existence of a punishment for a crime automatically decreases said crime incidence in the whole population. We know this to not be true (looking at abortion statistics over here).
Police presence is a deterrence, only and exclusively in those areas and time frames when they are present, and even then only partially (people still commit crimes, even when the police is present). We know that there’s no magical patrol coverage that deters crime completely. People will just do the crime, when and where the police isn’t looking and get creative about it. Not even permanent surveillance deters crime completely or permanently (UK’s mass surveillance didn’t even put a dent on their crime rates).
It might be true that some people who dodge fares can pay them. But to assume that it is not an undue financial pressure on some individuals is misguided and cruel. We already know what it needs to be done to reduce fare dodging, increase the service quality. When the value of the public transport is regarded as better than what’s charged, people are less likely to try to dodge the fare. But if the service is de-funded, installations dirty and derelict, slow, infrequent and on top of all of that the police is there to fuck you for fare dodging instead of making it safe for all users. Then people will consider it not worth their money. Adjacent to this, student, commuters, elder, children, job-seekers and disability subsidies on transport also increase people’s perception of the quality of the service. This all together reduces fare dodging way, way more than any punishment.
The NY Metro actually did it once, they cleaned the graffiti, repaired stations, fixed lightning and subsidized certain groups. It dropped not just the fare dodging but all crime inside the metro, faster than the state’s crime rate drop overall. But Giuliani shelved the project eventually because subway is for poor people and poor people don’t deserve quality services, apparently. Again, the cruelty seems to be the point.
It’s a pretty solid assumption that may not apply to every single person that dodges fares
Police don’t deter shit, this isn’t a contentious point of debate. They just don’t
See above
Bro, I just spent the past two weeks in Vienna Austria and Budapest Hungary.
Vienna especially has a very good subway system that can get you nearly anywhere in the city.
There are ticket kiosks everywhere.
There are no turnstiles.
You just purchase a ticket and go on. You can get anything from a 1 ride pass to a monthly pass.
Nobody checks tickets.
There are also trams that run above ground all over the city. Same thing.
There are kiosks on the tram, but nobody checks your ticket. And you can get 1 ride or 1 month tickets and anything in-between.
Budapest is “eastern Europe” where people are definitely poorer in general, but even there, there was nothing like what I am used to seeing in NYC. No police everywhere, no crime, and also, they don’t check your transit tickets.
Generally, the issue of not being able to afford a ticket is an American phenomenon. Actual developed countries don’t have the problems with homelessness or poverty that we have in the US.
Generally, dishonesty is a cultural issue. I had a German guy stay with us in the US for a few months. One time we were discussing what would happen if - for example - one were to pass a car on the right in Germany, what would the fine be? He didn’t know, but not for the reason you’d expect. His reply was basically, “No, you must not do this, the car will move to the right to let you pass!”. He simply could not fathom someone cruising in the left lane in Germany. And after visiting Austria, I cannot either. Cars DO actually move over to the right the instant they have passed a car. The left lane is kept open, even in heavy traffic. Full stop. Same with paying subway fares. They pay the fares. It is not even comprehensible to NOT pay the fares. They give you every opportunity to do the proper thing. They trust that you will do the right thing since that is so engrained into the cultural identity. Also, only a very small percentage of crime that is committed is not out of a place of desperation. If you have a well paying job, a strong government safety net, and a culture of following laws, people just generally behave. There is no need to have police standing around “deterring” people from commiting crimes.
see above.
This doesn’t work if you have a clash of cultures, though. How do you enforce that on people with a different culture and is that even okay?
For example, I read books to and with young kids in the local library once a month to help them learn the language (German). I have a hard time explaining to some of them and their parents(!) that it’s not okay to just take the books and, for example, sell them online.
I had a discussion with a woman who took an entire stack of identical books and she thought, since no one is checking her bags and she can easily take them, why shouldn’t she?
The same with rules for walking over a red light or driving your bike like a crazy person. There is no police in sight, why shouldn’t you walk over a red light or speed through the shopping street?
Cultural rules seem to be good on a first glance. But they are a fickle thing. And people who aren’t used to them are confronted with potential pitfalls.
You need police and fines because at one point just relying on cultural norms won’t work anymore. Police can be done much better, though. And instead of fines people should use community service more.
The solution for everything you mentioned is education, not punishment. Punishment is the answer of the xenophobe.
That is why I wrote community service as the better solution.
There is nothing to educate about why people shouldn’t steal the books from the library to sell them just because “no one checks my bags”. At that point, talking doesn’t work. Believe my, I tried. Having to work for the community might work, because it has a chance of giving the feeling of accomplishment and belonging when done right.
The only other thing that works is to ban her and her kid from the library when they keep stealing books. Which isn’t a good solution at all.
You have a fixation with hurting people, you just think that community service is the acceptable punishment in this case. Education is the solution. Just because you suck at talking to people outside of your culture doesn’t make it automatically ok to hurt them because you are too bigoted to understand how it is properly done.
Well then enlighten me. Since you are obviously a gentle and empathetic being, who is perfect in dealing with people (I got that from your answer, between the lines).
Tell me what I should tell the woman and her kid the next time I see her (25.02. very likely) and I will bring you back their exact response.
You should punch the kid in the face, set the lady’s hair on fire, and maybe cut a finger or two, before putting a ball and chain on the kid and forcing him to years of sweeping streets so he learns your culture of kindness, sharing and community, by force if necessary. And when he invariably fails due to institutionalization and abuse, deport them back to their country of origin with barely the clothes on their back.
Or you could, you know, say hello, and engage in genuine conversation like a fucking normal human being, showing genuine curiosity and respect. Understand their background and culture and figure the bests strategies to articulate their values with your culture’s values to establish a common ground where the principles and purposes of your rules and laws make sense to both.
I kind of already knew you wouldn’t have anything worthwhile to say.
Police only deter crime in their immediate area. I’m talking a radius of feet, not miles. Crime just moves to a different area. They are a less effective deterrent and more expensive than than a good camera system.
Police react to crime afterwards. The main things that prevent crime are money, respect, a sense of purpose, education, etc. A church, a basketball court, or an office building do more to deter crime than a police officer, and are much cheaper.
Wow, you’re white as hell
Wow, you’re making an argument ad hominem.
(And racist)