The ‘clearances paradox’: could less policing actually reduce gun violence in New York?

Your over simplifying the complex reasons behind crime.

Violent antisocial behaviour presents itself in a small percentage of young (mostly) males. It can be predicted as early as age 4 and effective intervention is very difficult. Most people who present with it tend to age out of the behaviour by around 30. Therefore the only effective strategy to protect the rest of us from this tiny fraction of people is to confine them until they age out. This is basically what our criminal justice system does, however imperfectly.

If we were to design a system eyes-open, knowing these constraints, with the goal of minimizing violent crime, we'd:

1. Enact age-based confinement - teenagers who present with violent antisocialism are very likely to reoffend in their 20s. Violent teenagers and young adults should be confined until they've aged out.

2. Structure prison culture - prison should not be crime university. Criminals should not be permitted to form a culture. Violent antisocialism should not be tolerated in prison. Instead they should be given the tools to find a legitimate place in society upon their eventual release. Japan does this quite well.

3. Seal records after release - criminal records relating to youth-associated violent antisocialism should be sealed. People we release should have a clear path to reintegration without discrimination.

That won't fix everything, of course. People will get involved in crime for other reasons. Obviously there are rich people who are criminals; financial security doesn't remove every temptation to do crime. But I think a lot of the people you label "antisocial" these days are people who have been left behind by society, people who have gotten crushed by wages that haven't kept up with inflation (even before the current inflation issues), by companies who raise CEO pay and send dividends to investors, while ignoring the wages of their employees. Why would anyone bother to be "social" if doing so doesn't solve their economic insecurity?

And sure, there are some people who just don't give a shit about living in polite society, who don't think twice about violating norms and taking what they want. I have no problem locking those people up. But I think those people are a much smaller percentage of people who commit crimes than you think.

I don't know much about policing in Israel, but as I understand Japan, there's rampant corruption and a lot of innocent people behind bars. A near-100% conviction rate is just too good to be true. If you get charged with a crime in Japan, you are screwed, even if you didn't do anything wrong. The only alternative explanation is that Japanese police are so afraid of losing a case that they only charge the near-certain slam dunks. But if that were the case, I think we'd see a lot more crime in Japan than we do. So the only realistic explanation is that a lot of innocent people get steamrolled.

I do absolutely agree with your points 2 and 3. Time spent in prison should not make convicts into better criminals! Hell, even sitting in pre-trial detention for a few months can harden minor offenders. And after a prisoner has served their time, they shouldn't have that history dragged into employment, housing, credit, etc. decisions. If we still feel like they can't be trusted in jobs without their employers knowing about their conviction history, then they probably aren't fit to be released from prison in the first place.

These are not mutually exclusive propositions. As I mentioned in my comment, there are two concerns here:

1. Reducing the number of violent antisocial people by reducing the number of people who are exposed to childhood circumstances that tend to produce them. This is complicated and entails dictating to parents how they raise their children to a much higher degree than most people are comfortable, and than our society's values permit.

2. Dealing with the ones who already exist. This is policing and justice.

> the people you label "antisocial" these days are people who have been left behind by society

> It's the economy, stupid

If only it were this simple. I'm referring to people who haven't been correctly socialized in their early childhood. Toddlers are all violent, self centered, assholes by adult standards. They learn not to be through appropriate socialization with their peers, through play. Children who are not given this developmental opportunity past a particular age tend to exhibit traits that strongly correlate with violence in early adulthood. This is exacerbated by numerous domestic factors, most importantly the absence of two parents in the household and the presence of violent antisocial adults in the household (not household income).

We can observe these same traits and behaviours develop in our ape relatives for the same reasons. We're not that different.

> I think those people are a much smaller percentage of people who commit crimes than you think

This just isn't true - this small percentage of people are the serial criminals responsible for most of the real danger in our society - shootings, armed home invasions, armed robberies, etc. These sorts of crimes are largely not committed by people who are "down and out", but by people who are in many ways fundamentally different from the average person. I'm not talking about petty theft here.

This can be most clearly illustrated by the phenomenon of college campus rape. The rapes themselves are committed by a tiny fraction of repeat offenders. "Teach men not to rape" doesn't work on them. They're just not like most people, mostly as a result of some combination of tragic childhood circumstances and poor socialization (again, not household wealth). The best solution is to identify these people and imprison them as efficiently as possible. To enact this solution effectively, the people we entrust with it need power.

This is a tired trope.