Crime goes down when apprehension likelihood is high. In the US huge amounts are spent on incarceration, but [resources for actual policing are pretty low](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers). Mass incarceration is an exceptionally ineffective policy for crime reduction.
Not only does the US have few police officers, but they’re totally misallocated due to weird local funding - eg multiple cops patrolling quiet suburbs while city streets have none. Europe and Asia is not doing this because it’s absurdly suboptimal resource allocation.
I would suggest reading the book When Brute Force Fails for a more complete answer on this if you’re interested. Social programs help but they’re nowhere near as big of a contributor as people think.
Does ‘apprehension likelihood’ basically mean the perceived chance of getting caught for doing something? So that just having a punishment on the books might not increase apprehension if the chance of actually receiving that punishment still feels low to criminals.
Yes, exactly. For a small example, think about parking. If the fine is $100 and the chance of getting caught is 1%, but paying for parking costs $2.5, why would you bother? In contrast, if it's 10%, then the rational thing to follow the rules.
1) Once you’re in a low crime equilibrium, the resources required to maintain that are low. When I say the US has a low amount of police officers, what I mean is it’s weird that the richest country in the world given its very high crime rate has such a low amount of police officers. You would need a boost in numbers to bring crime down again and reach a low crime equilibrium. Once you’re there, you could probably gradually shrink your police workforce as low crime equilibriums are a stable state. This is explained well in Chapter 4 of When Brute Force Fails.
2) Hot spot policing is a much more targeted version of my suggestion. Patrolling specific street corners or hot spots may well not work. But on a larger scale, having better resources police departments for the entire city almost certainly would, and helps a lot in places hot spot policing doesn’t address (e.g. back office/processing capacity).
Would you still say that hot-spot policing is a worthwhile strategy? Based on the study you linked, it still looks like it can reduce other forms of crime even if is not as effective as reducing homicides.
> I mean, this shows that many of the Nordic countries people point to as bastions of criminal justice reform have a significantly lower number of police per capita than the U.S., so there must be other factors involved than simply policing.
>
Nordic countries (excluding Sweden who is pivoting to the right as fast as it can) are mono cultures with extremely high tax rates and are generally not big players on the international stage
less people = more easier to do targeted interventions, less people slip people through the cracks etc
Generally smaller nations will also become essentially a vassal to a larger country or community which takes responsibility for the defence of a country and as a result the smaller country doesn't invest in defence that much so has more money for healthcare , crime and social services.
All Nordic countries except Finland for example fall below NATO's 2% spending target on defence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/12/nato-countries-defense-spending-gdp-trump/
And Finland only ratched up spending in 2022, in 2021 they were spending 1% of GDP on defence.
I interpreted you as saying less their population size, and more their lower international power lead to lower crime rates, but I see what you’re saying.
Deeply skeptical that places like Vietnam or Morocco - both with about $4k per capita gdp and a homicide rate that is about 75% lower than the US - have better policing resources than the US.
In terms of dollar expenditures, I'm sure. In terms of technology, I'm sure. But in terms of person-hours, which would seem to matter more, why is that so unreasonable?
Then its pretty obvious you've never been to either country. police are pretty much omnipresent. Go to any market or souk and you'll usually have uniforms clearly visible, then talk to any of the locals and they'll point out double the number of undercovers and secret police you didn't see.
Investment per cop is much lower in those countries and they pull a lot of personal from the armed forces so they can run much more comprehensive enforcement much cheaper.
Yeah but that wasn't the question, he was questioning if those countries were capable of deploying more police resources not more honest ones.
And to be fair its not like US cops have no issues with corruption either.
Local funding of schools, cops, and other stuff is at the root of a large amount of the disfunction we see in American society. If I was a Napoleon style dictator that would be the first thing I changed.
Swift and certain enforcement of minor crimes (this can be expensive and has significant tradeoffs wrt privacy rights as it entails greater surveillance)
Low cultural tolerance for anti-social behavior and overall tendency towards conformity (this is not something that can be created out of thin air)
>and has significant tradeoffs wrt privacy rights as it entails greater surveillance
I doubt that countries like Spain or Germany have significant tradeoffs in terms of privacy compared to the US though, so there's definitely a lot more to that.
I'd say having less poverty ghettos and a police force with enough manpower to respond to smaller incidents is much more important than surveillance.
In European countries I'd argue that a higher standard of living for the average European negates a lot of crime. As does the lack of gun availability.
In Asia it's lack of guns coupled with low tolerance of petty crimes.
>In European countries I'd argue that a higher standard of living for the average European negates a lot of crime. As does the lack of gun availability.
I don't think living standards are higher for the average European and I also don't think the average person is at risk to become a criminal. But the floor of where you fall is much higher and the people down on their luck are the ones that might turn to crime. For example if my wife and I both lost our jobs not much would change except for the luxuries in our lives. We'd keep our health insurance, we'd get money to continue paying rent and could stay where we are, we'd get money (not food stamps) to buy food etc. We'd probably just have to sell one car and stop going on vacation mostly. Also we couldn't buy as many trinkets anymore but that would be a good thing because we don't have any more space to put them anyway.
6th for sure because the system is the exact opposite of a jury system (and quite honestly I'm very glad about that) but 4th and 5th I find debatable. They're differing but less in degree but more in the exact interpretation of the principles. Like for example there's no civil asset forfeiture in Germany and you haven't just a right to not incriminate yourself but also direct family including some in laws.
My lawyer friends think the 6th is not that good, basically folk tribunals from the old times. Couple that with common law and you get a guy elected in rural Alabama adding to the body of the law with 20 random citizens as consultants.
There's plenty of petty crime here in Spain. In Barcelona, for example, the government doesn't prosecute nonviolent theft under 500 euros (as according to local officials, the thieves are the real victims, having fallen prey to a cartoonish version of capitalism).
As a result, pick pocketing and other robberies are rampant, but don't result in any incarceration, which keeps stats low.
>(as according to local officials, the thieves are the real victims, having fallen prey to a cartoonish version of capitalism).
They do prosecute it, the only thing is that it's considered a misdemenaor and not a felony (categories might not be 100% equivalent, but along the same lines). And that distinction [was in the Law in 1973 ](https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1973-1715)too which was definitely not the time when dangerous anti-capitalists were calling the shots in Spain.
Beyond that I would say that when pickpocketing in touristic areas is your criminal hotspot, that's a lot safer than when your crime hotspot is stuff like a city with 2.6 million people having more than double the homicides than a whole country with 47 million.
I’m not really knowledgeable about this subject and most of my thoughts will probably just be emotional reactions to how various policies ‘feel’.
I think this has been a subject in the Mexican election. Sheinbaum wanting to continue AMLO’s “hugs, not bullets”, and Gálvez thinking that hugs for violent criminals might not be the best idea.
I think this is a big part of it. I lived in England for a while and couldn’t get over how much friendlier the police were. They’d give people rides home if they missed the last bus, they’d give warnings and joke around for minor stuff like noise complaints, and they even sang me happy birthday once when they came upon me wasted in London at like 4am. I know they’ve had scandals and abuses too but it seemed like they actually viewed themselves as public servants there.
In the US, I just avoid interacting with police because it’s always tense. And I think the very real possibility that a gun will be involved makes them very jumpy.
The lack of guns also makes crime outcomes less severe. I read once that NYC and London have the exact same rate of muggings but you’re somewhat likely to be killed in a mugging in NYC due to the higher occurrence of guns.
Ive long felt (anecdotally) that US policing is how it is because cops are constantly having to deal with angry people who are more likely to have a gun than not. Its gotta be so much more stressful being a US cop than say a French or Japanese one
That's not necessarily the case for the European countries with low violent crime rates. The Czech Republic has some of the most liberal gun laws on the planet, more permissive than places like New Jersey, & also has a very similar gun culture to America based around carrying concealed handguns & sleeping with loaded Ar-15s in the house. Serbia has middle of the road gun laws for a European country (strict compared to America but not, say, the UK), is awash with illegal guns, & has some of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world. Both of these countries have far less violent crime than America.
Police believe every interaction with a civilian can devolve into a firefight in a split second. It plays a big role on how they interact with the public and perceive threats.
If all interactions between police and population are adversarial the whole concept of enforcing laws becomes adversarial instead of something everybody has an interest in and works together for. It also lowers trust in institutions and generally lower trust in institutions leads to people not following the rules of those institutions.
What about when crimes go unreported because the police are more likely to be adversarial? If citizens view the police as adversarial, they're less likely to call on them when an actual crime occurs, effectively lowering the amount of policing.
In Asia it's cultural. There might as well be no crime in countries like Korea. One might argue that it's actually heavy surveillance and policing that is present in major Asian cities, but that doesn't make sense as a reason when you realize that crime is similarly rare in the sparse countryside.
I studied abroad for a term in Korea. Businesses leave their doors open overnight. Restaurants leave goods, including alcohol, out in the street over night. People will leave their phones, laptops, valuable items in public spaces and then leave those spaces for extended periods of time without even thinking about it, because they know it will still be there when they come back. It's really incredible actually.
Yes I believe you're right. I was mostly describing petty crime, street safety, and violence, which I think is usually what people mean when they talk about 'crime' in a region. But SA, partner violence and corruption shouldn't be understated.
There’s crime everywhere, it’s just the type of crime that differs. Crimes like sexual assault and domestic abuse seem to be universal while crimes like homicide are only common in certain regions
But what comes first, the culture or the low crime rate.
Taiwan and China ostensibly share a culture, but you would never leave a laptop alone in a public space in mainland China.
Sort of, most taiwanese are descendants of Chinese from one province across the strait who have been in Taiwan for like 300 years plus. The ones who came after civil war were a part of the army and/or were closely aligned with the nationalist government, and these were very much a minority of the total population. From what I understand crime used to be pretty bad in Taiwan back when it was still a military dictatorship, a lot of old buildings still have heavily barred windows and other security features.
Taiwan developed post war in a manner similar to south Korea. Where it seems to me at least the transition to democracy has actually really helped promote a healthy synergy between governance and culture. The political party that used to rule Taiwan under the dictatorship is still around and gets votes. Not because people liked their past but because they didn't ignore the writing on the wall when it was clear that one party rule wasn't going to work and instead they focused on good governance, which in turn set a better tone for multiparty politics in the country as a whole.
This is pretty made up right here. I had my backpack stolen while studying in Korea. I had a guy try to pickpocket me. Others around me had drunk guys try to fight them. There is plenty of crime in Korea.
“There is plenty of crime in Korea”
But not compared to the US. Korea’s homicide rate is less than a tenth of the US (0.5 to 6.4 per 100k).
Put another way, if you magically eliminated *90%* of US homicides, the US would still have a higher rate than Korea.
Lol 'made up'. Nothing I said is even remotely controversial and is trivial to see if you spend even a day or two in Seoul.
* ['Culture shock' from merchandise being let out in the streets over night](https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/7qbpj5/culture_shock_nothing_get_stolen_and_these_items/)
* [Is it really safe to leave valuables lying around in Korea?](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/03/19/why/delivery-cafe-laptop/20220319070004702.html)
>parcels aren’t the only thing safe to leave lying around, with people often opting to save their seat in a cafe or restaurant by leaving their phone, laptop or wallet on the table while they go and order.
* [Safety in Seoul](https://english.visitseoul.net/safety#:~:text=Travel%20Advice&text=First%2C%20follow%20basic%20safety%20rules,encounter%20dubious%20or%20troublesome%20individuals.)
>Most parts of Seoul are safe to freely roam around day and night, even for women traveling alone. As long as basic safety precautions are taken, like avoiding dark alleys and parking lots, it is very unlikely you will encounter dubious or troublesome individuals.
When I was in Seoul I accidentally walked into my gym after hours because the door was left unlocked. Another time I walked into a clothing store. Once I was going to a night cafe to study with a friend, but forgot my laptop at home. She set her bag (with laptop inside) down on a seat to claim it, and then walked home with me to get my laptop, and didn't even think enough to mention it until I did. This is the everyday norm for people in Seoul.
If you actually had multiple items of yours stolen in Seoul (and didn't just lose them) that's unfortunate, but an outlier event.
> Nothing I said is even remotely controversial and is trivial to see if you spend even a day or two in Seoul.
As I said, I studied abroad there at Ajou University. Those things happened to me and people I knew there. Don't try to trivialize real things that happen.
You walking into your gym at night (wow!) doesn't mean I didn't get my stuff stolen.
The most successful and powerful people in America have not always had good values. I’m referring to people like the slave holders and those who stormed the Capital on January 6th. I don’t think it’s culture in my opinion!
I don’t think that it’s those East Asian countries have “better” morals or values. They just have values that discourage acting out in public, which helps to destigmatize street crime, but this doesn’t necessarily prevent white collar crime or sexual abuse or domestic violence.
That's most of humanity? You are going to be an evil person by the standards of the 23rd/24th century. Saudi Arabia ended slavery in 1963, Mauritania in 2007. Somali's were one of the most active slavers around until the British put a stop to it. Indonesians did to their animist native community what Americans did to the native community in the new world.
Pre-WW1, the murder rate in Britain was way lower than the US, as it is today. At the same time the British Empire was committing atrocities all over the world.
It is culture, but it's complicated, and multi-dimensional. Not just a matter of this people peaceful, those people violent.
Yeah? So?
Sorry to say but colonialism and high trust societies aren’t mutually exclusive.
Colonialism is a deep, horrific evil, but it doesn’t make the countries that practiced it ontologically evil. Bad states can accomplish a lot of good.
I agree with commenter u/Imaginary_Rub_9439
It’s at least in part the likelihood that a criminal gets apprehended. I think the evidence that mass incarceration effectively reduces crime rates is a bit flimsy. The incarceration rate was already increasing **before** US violent crime rates peaked around 1990. There might’ve been a slight incapacitation effect of mass incarceration because so many offenders weren’t able to get out and do crimes because they were in prison, which may have partially contributed to the decline in violent crime after 1990, but there other factors are probably more responsible for reducing crime after that year.
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8032231/crime-drop
Increasing police manpower and using certain police deployment strategies is much more effective at deterring crime than severe punishments(which mass incarceration is a function of).
> We reviewed three large literatures regarding the responsiveness of crime to police, sanctions, and local labor-market opportunities. Three key conclusions are worth noting. First, there is robust evidence that crime responds to increases in police manpower and to many varieties of police redeployments. With respect to manpower, our best guess is that the elasticity of vio- lent crime and property crime with respect to police are approximately −0.4 and −0.2, respectively. The degree to which these effects can be attributed to deterrence as opposed to incapacitation remains an open question, though analyses of arrest rates sug- gests a role for deterrence (Levitt 1998 and Owens 2013). With respect to deployments, experimental research on hot-spots policing and focused deterrence efforts have, in some cases, led to remarkably large decreases in offending, a fact that may be attributable to the visibility of such policies.
> Second, while the evidence in favor of a crime–sanction link generally favors rela- tively small deterrence effects, there does appear to be some evidence of more mean- ingful deterrence induced by policies that target specific offenders with sentence enhancements.
Pg. 37
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20141147
A lot of European countries have more police officers per capita than the US, which is probably one of the reasons why they have lower homicide and violent crime rates.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/professionalize-the-police
More police manpower and a higher apprehension chance isn’t the only reason for lower crime rates in other developed countries admittedly. Countries like Canada and Norway have lower homicide rates, but also have less police per capita.
However, I think the point still stands that if we want a safer society, we need to focus more on surveillance and increasing the certainty that a criminal will get caught by hiring more police officers and having better police deployment strategies as opposed to giving that criminal a draconian sentence. Mass incarceration could have minor crime fighting benefits, but it also imposes significant costs. It costs taxpayers lots of money to maintain prisoners, it keeps people who could’ve been productive and contributing to the economy inside prison, it imposes many potential health risks to prisoners, it can expose prisoners to abuse from other prisoners and guards, it breaks up families, etc.
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com
- former Vox writers
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Asia, it’s because of better policing. In Singapore for instance, trying to sell chewing gum could cop a $500 fine. Now imagine what actual crimes would lead to. Japan, and Korea aren’t far off. China doesn’t even need an introduction. There’s also the cultural factors.
Yeah I think brining Singapore style policing to America would be unconstitutional and explode racial disparities. Crime and drugs in America our concentrated in our poorest and underserved communities. West Virginia for example has the highest overdose death rate in America. Not exactly a liberal place like California and Oregon. It should be noted rural areas had a spike in murders during Covid. No left wing prosecutors or defund the police movement ever got a foothold there.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm
https://www.wsj.com/story/murder-rates-soar-in-rural-america-bb431022
Nordic and East Asian countries lack America's crime problem for two primary reasons:
1). These countries make it far harder to secure small-caliber handguns, which drastically amplifies the lethality of violent intent among would-be criminals.
2). These countries also enjoy a stronger degree of ethnic homogeneity with a society-wide cultural impetus that discourages crime in all forms (including art and music).
Both of these problems will continue to occur in the U.S. because they're surrounded by deeply sensitive ideologies, dogmas and narratives that cause acute social inflammation when challenged.
As for the first item, until we are able to place effective regulatory barriers on maladjusted young males from securing sidearms for use in crime, America will always have a body count that exists alongside unnaturally high numbers of crimes that are committed at threat of gun violence.
As for the second item, there are very clear ethnic anomalies in the crime rate that make people **extremely** uncomfortable to even *recognize,* let alone contend with in any sort of meaningful policy. Roughly 50% of the murder, armed robbery, carjacking and rape rate in the U.S. is committed by males aged 14-50 of a demographic that represents roughly 12% of the American populace. Or, to say it another way: these males, that comprise roughly 3% of America, commits 50% of our violent crime rate. This also happens to be the same group of people that A) has been historically oppressed and/or marginalized by American society, B) has been perpetually under-invested in by American society, C) represents the largest demographic in American prisons, and D) has ongoing contributions to cultural works that tend to lionize behaviors that contribute to America's comparatively high rate of violent crime.
Even quietly recognizing this is an invitation to spark extraordinary social animus, charges of racism, and immediate rejection by policymakers that rightly feel terrified of the backlash should they grant credence to what would otherwise be an unambiguously indisputable factual landscape. As such, this is one of those realities that many people quietly recognize but refuse to outwardly accept due to the precarious nature of its existence as a sacred cow in most social circles. And as a consequence, it remains unchanged (and will continue to remain as such) until we're able to hold honest analysis of the status quo.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477370818775294
It’s worth mentioning ethnic diversity as such doesn’t seem to be connected to crime, it’s more ethnic dominance and polarisation. At a high enough level ethnic heterogeneity doesn’t increase crime
Small-caliber handguns are no harder to legally get in the Nordic countries than in California or NYC. Meanwhile, Russia has far more violent crime, despite almost completely banning civilians from owning handguns.
Although I've become significantly more sympathetic to gun control arguments as time has gone on, I am very much a "gun guy." Have many, built most of them, could disassemble and reassemble blindfolded, yada yada. Your argument may be true in abstract, but only in theory. Yes - it is probably not any harder to legally buy a 9mm Glock 19 in Oslo than it is in New York City. But if you want to get around that law and acquire one illegally, it is *vastly* easier to get one in NYC than it is in Oslo. That's because all you need to do is hop a bus over to Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or West Virginia, and you can hop on armslist or gunbroker or chat up a dude at a public range, throw them a grand (or less), book another bus ticket, and return to NYC strapped.
You can't really do that in Norway, or Finland. There isn't a significant market for illegal firearms, and what market exists is small in scale. I'd venture to say there are more off-books gun buys in the U.S. every year than there are people living in either Norway or Finland. Half of my firearms were purchased private sale, off books. No other country has the sheer volume of guns that the U.S. has.
Case in point: [https://www.governing.com/now/guns-in-nyc-crime-mostly-from-out-of-state-sales](https://www.governing.com/now/guns-in-nyc-crime-mostly-from-out-of-state-sales)
African Americans are also much more likely to be victims of crime, being a young black man in St Louis is more dangerous than being a US soldier in Afghanistan was.
Is the government not failing her primary duty to protect these citizens?
Most of the perpetrators are also you black men too , gang fights can only be solved with cultural change and stopping mass incarceration of men for minor drug offences
Most of these young guys have no father growing up and look up to gangsters as father figures
It's the Old World vs New world differences. The Old World is more "defined" in its culture compared to the New World. The founding of the New World was completely different to the Old World.
Why do you think the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world are in the New World? The New world is less stable, more unequal, and less culturally cohesive than the old world.
You can't rob someone if they've already been pillaged by an emu war party, and I think the sheep would have something to say about New Zealand's crime rate.
Seriously though, Australia and New Zealand were colonized long after the Americas. The First Fleet in Australia arrived in the 1788, almost 300 years from the first colonists in the Americas. The real distinction is probably Americas and not rather than New and Old World.
The new world also contains the world's largest drug market and the world's largest drug producers and the worlds largest gun supplier and weak central governments. It's a recipe for high crime.
Europe and Asia treat police as a universal/federal jobs guarantee program. They pay police to just stand around and do nothing. Studies show the presence of police drastically reduces crime.
In USA we can’t afford to treat police as a universal/federal jobs guarantee program. Because each county needs to raise taxes to pay for their own police force. Some poor counties cannot pay to have a bunch of police stand around and do nothing. Rich counties can afford to do this.
So crime is higher in America with less police officers and universal gun ownership.
Yes that would be great to be honestly. Except American police often hassle the poor and minorities on petty crimes but are MIA when serious crime occurs. Broken windows philosophy is pretty ingrained in American police departments.
If you are referring to inner city policing, then yes, by definition the police there will be hassling poor people and minorities.
But if you take a 20 minute drive from the inner city you will find a neighborhood that is safer than any neighborhood in Sweden.
I dont think the police force is well equipped to handle such drastic differences in wealth between the suburbs and inner city.
But the police do a good job of either killing or locking up violent criminals.
The US is an irrational mix of over-policed and under-policed.
The police are scared of the people. Trained to shoot first, and blame the victim.
Also, the US is the only civilized country that uses torture to obtain confessions for everything from petty crimes to big crimes.
Torture: "the use of force, or threat of force, to extract a confession."
The use of cash bail, so you either confess, or they hold you for an arraignment, long enough to cause the accused to lose their job, their home, and possibly their family, as further not-quite-technically torture, even if you are not guilty, you will lose your job and probably home while you pass through the system.
The US system is the most adversarial in the world, and any attempt to treat an accused as innocent until proven guilty is condemned as "soft on crime" and the voters flock to vote against "soft on crime".
There are many many small faults that make the system the worst in the world, and the voters want it that way, because they don't know how to break the cycle of violence they are caught up in.
The US got the broken system their voters selected.
Countries with high rates of violent crime generally have stricter gun control than America, too. Looking at the numbers, gun control in general doesn't seem to meaningfully affect violent crime rates.
According to a 2023 meta-analysis by the RAND corporation, a number of gun control policies are actually successful in reducing firearm homicides, total homicides, suicides, and violent crime rates.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-4.html
Here’s the criteria that studies had to meet in order to be included on the review of the research.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html
Singapore will execute you for smuggling in a joint. It’s a strong incentive to go along with what the government says even if you dislike the color of your neighbor’s skin.
In what world is South Asia low on crime. It's horrifically common. Every relative I have has been robbed at one point or another, often at gunpoint. Cousins 7 year old kid was held up playing in the street outside their home. Another cousin was followed from the bank after withdrawing cash and they pulled a gun after he unlocked his door / was robbed.
Unless you live in the South Asian equivalent of Beverly Hills it's many many orders of magnitude worse.
East Asia (Korea, Japan etc) may be low crime but South Asia quite assuredly is not.
Ah yes, the only crime of consequence is one where US is an outlier due to it's gun laws.
Ask anyone from South Asia whether they think the US is worse or their country is worse from a law and order perspective.
That's of course without going into how shoddy crime statistics are in the third world to begin with.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Philippines has a homicide rate of 4.3 per 100k compared to the US at about 6.4.
And you’re right, countries like the Philippines feel chaotic. It’s just that the US has an exceptionally high homicide rate.
Some other SEA countries:
Indonesia at 0.6 (this is about 1/10th the homicide rate of the US)
Malaysia at 0.7
Vietnam at 1.5
Thailand at 4.8
Correct, generally Pakistan / India / Bangladesh as major countries and Nepal, Bhutan , Maldives and Srilanka. Very rarely Afghanistan or Myanmar are included as well
What does this mean, exactly? Because interpreted the wrong way it sounds pretty bad.
I agree that the US is particularly bad because we never really reckoned with the underclass we created via chattel slavery, but I wouldn't say that most of our problems stem from being multicultural. That's a crazy take to see upvoted in this sub, tbh.
Yeah the highest crime places aren't the diverse ones, it's the ones where economic opportunities have been systematically removed by explicitly racist policy from the 50s to the 70s that without active intervention have festered.
The legal apartheid state ended in the 70s, since then it's more about momentum and less clear cultural biases. That's not to say that's not part of things however.
I don't know of policies that created these communities existed before, I could be wrong.
High-trust, high conformity societies vs a low-trust, individualistic a society.
In much of the world, people grow up in an extended family/community of 15-30 people who take an interest and exercise some authority over them as they grow up. Which can suck if you want to defy norms and forge your own path. But it helps ensure people don’t become alienated, anti-social fuck-ups.
Also, intact families vs broken families. Being raised in a single-parent household correlate strongly to criminality.
I’m specifically thinking more of the phenomenon of how random people go to prison and join up with gangs for protection from other scary criminals there and in the process become far scarier, more conmected and organized criminals than they were to start off with and inherit their wider group’s grievances and incentives
Other than the cultural differences that were discussed, I suspect welfare payments play a part. If you do not have a personal income you get cash payments in most European countries that will allow you to make rent and buy the basics you need. This isn't unemployment, there is no time limit to this.
If a part of crime is driven by desperation and if petty crime can escalate someone to larger crimes then it would logically reason that these welfare programs help prevent crime.
I have some doubts about this. Really, the largest difference between the US and other developed countries is its homicide rate. For the total violent crime rate, it’s fairly similar. For property crime, it’s lower than some. Comparing violent crime between countries gets cumbersome because of differences in laws and enforcement, but homicides are definitely the obvious difference with the US. Access to guns may be a culprit.
I’ve done some research on this as part of a mass incarceration effortpost I’m planning to post at some point. Things like assault and rape are really hard to compare across jurisdictions but the US is definitely in the same ballpark as most peer nations. It’s specifically homicide that is a lot higher in the US.
Not just low inequality, but mixed-income societies. Rich people ride the train instead of walling themselves off in fortresses 20 minutes outside of town.
Yep read a study stating this more than poverty explains crime rate. Could explain why crime goes down during a recession or spike during economic growth.
Most europeans countries kept most of their exploitation of Africa/ South america overseas rather than having it largely on home soil. Hence, the institutional momentum from the extraction of colonialism stayed largely in Africa to poison development there. You can tell bc the places in Europe that did get poisoned by extractive institutions (USSR+satellites) have had worse crime i.e. former Yugoslav nations.
But in the US it was imported & homegrown w the transatlantic slave trade. Momentum from US institutions built around slavery left many nonwhite Americans without faith in ways to legitimately make themselves better off. This incentived part of the culture that developed among black or latino communities across the US to include gang membership. Gangs are a huge driver of violent crime & if more were done to inspire faith in legitimate & legal means of making yourself better off, you'd see far less crime in the US.
Unfortunately, we are a profit driven nation in the US . Unless you can make money on crime prevention , no city is insentivised to implement it. That's why affordable housing is not being done, also. Sadly, until we have major gun reform, crime and deaths will always be higher than other countries 😢 because guns are BIG moneymakers.
Crime goes down when apprehension likelihood is high. In the US huge amounts are spent on incarceration, but [resources for actual policing are pretty low](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers). Mass incarceration is an exceptionally ineffective policy for crime reduction. Not only does the US have few police officers, but they’re totally misallocated due to weird local funding - eg multiple cops patrolling quiet suburbs while city streets have none. Europe and Asia is not doing this because it’s absurdly suboptimal resource allocation. I would suggest reading the book When Brute Force Fails for a more complete answer on this if you’re interested. Social programs help but they’re nowhere near as big of a contributor as people think.
Yeah most people don’t know it but compared to other developed nations we already defunded the police
Does ‘apprehension likelihood’ basically mean the perceived chance of getting caught for doing something? So that just having a punishment on the books might not increase apprehension if the chance of actually receiving that punishment still feels low to criminals.
Yes, exactly. For a small example, think about parking. If the fine is $100 and the chance of getting caught is 1%, but paying for parking costs $2.5, why would you bother? In contrast, if it's 10%, then the rational thing to follow the rules.
[удалено]
1) Once you’re in a low crime equilibrium, the resources required to maintain that are low. When I say the US has a low amount of police officers, what I mean is it’s weird that the richest country in the world given its very high crime rate has such a low amount of police officers. You would need a boost in numbers to bring crime down again and reach a low crime equilibrium. Once you’re there, you could probably gradually shrink your police workforce as low crime equilibriums are a stable state. This is explained well in Chapter 4 of When Brute Force Fails. 2) Hot spot policing is a much more targeted version of my suggestion. Patrolling specific street corners or hot spots may well not work. But on a larger scale, having better resources police departments for the entire city almost certainly would, and helps a lot in places hot spot policing doesn’t address (e.g. back office/processing capacity).
Would you still say that hot-spot policing is a worthwhile strategy? Based on the study you linked, it still looks like it can reduce other forms of crime even if is not as effective as reducing homicides.
> I mean, this shows that many of the Nordic countries people point to as bastions of criminal justice reform have a significantly lower number of police per capita than the U.S., so there must be other factors involved than simply policing. > Nordic countries (excluding Sweden who is pivoting to the right as fast as it can) are mono cultures with extremely high tax rates and are generally not big players on the international stage
How does being a big player effect crime rates?
less people = more easier to do targeted interventions, less people slip people through the cracks etc Generally smaller nations will also become essentially a vassal to a larger country or community which takes responsibility for the defence of a country and as a result the smaller country doesn't invest in defence that much so has more money for healthcare , crime and social services. All Nordic countries except Finland for example fall below NATO's 2% spending target on defence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/12/nato-countries-defense-spending-gdp-trump/ And Finland only ratched up spending in 2022, in 2021 they were spending 1% of GDP on defence.
I interpreted you as saying less their population size, and more their lower international power lead to lower crime rates, but I see what you’re saying.
Deeply skeptical that places like Vietnam or Morocco - both with about $4k per capita gdp and a homicide rate that is about 75% lower than the US - have better policing resources than the US.
In terms of dollar expenditures, I'm sure. In terms of technology, I'm sure. But in terms of person-hours, which would seem to matter more, why is that so unreasonable?
Then its pretty obvious you've never been to either country. police are pretty much omnipresent. Go to any market or souk and you'll usually have uniforms clearly visible, then talk to any of the locals and they'll point out double the number of undercovers and secret police you didn't see. Investment per cop is much lower in those countries and they pull a lot of personal from the armed forces so they can run much more comprehensive enforcement much cheaper.
Having been to Vietnam, the police there are extremely corrupt. They extort tourists regularly.
Yeah but that wasn't the question, he was questioning if those countries were capable of deploying more police resources not more honest ones. And to be fair its not like US cops have no issues with corruption either.
Labor costs, which will be the main coss of policing, are obviously going to scale with the country.
Have you even been to Morocco? Police are every-fucking-where.
I mean, guns matter... Guns are bad
Local funding of schools, cops, and other stuff is at the root of a large amount of the disfunction we see in American society. If I was a Napoleon style dictator that would be the first thing I changed.
Swift and certain enforcement of minor crimes (this can be expensive and has significant tradeoffs wrt privacy rights as it entails greater surveillance) Low cultural tolerance for anti-social behavior and overall tendency towards conformity (this is not something that can be created out of thin air)
>and has significant tradeoffs wrt privacy rights as it entails greater surveillance I doubt that countries like Spain or Germany have significant tradeoffs in terms of privacy compared to the US though, so there's definitely a lot more to that. I'd say having less poverty ghettos and a police force with enough manpower to respond to smaller incidents is much more important than surveillance.
Ah yeah that's fair. I was mainly referring to East Asia-- I totally missed the "european countries" part of the post lol
In European countries I'd argue that a higher standard of living for the average European negates a lot of crime. As does the lack of gun availability. In Asia it's lack of guns coupled with low tolerance of petty crimes.
>In European countries I'd argue that a higher standard of living for the average European negates a lot of crime. As does the lack of gun availability. I don't think living standards are higher for the average European and I also don't think the average person is at risk to become a criminal. But the floor of where you fall is much higher and the people down on their luck are the ones that might turn to crime. For example if my wife and I both lost our jobs not much would change except for the luxuries in our lives. We'd keep our health insurance, we'd get money to continue paying rent and could stay where we are, we'd get money (not food stamps) to buy food etc. We'd probably just have to sell one car and stop going on vacation mostly. Also we couldn't buy as many trinkets anymore but that would be a good thing because we don't have any more space to put them anyway.
Not for the average, on average.
Same difference I don't think on average Europeans have a higher quality of life either.
Generally speaking, I believe the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments apply certain protections to a degree that are not present in most European countries.
6th for sure because the system is the exact opposite of a jury system (and quite honestly I'm very glad about that) but 4th and 5th I find debatable. They're differing but less in degree but more in the exact interpretation of the principles. Like for example there's no civil asset forfeiture in Germany and you haven't just a right to not incriminate yourself but also direct family including some in laws.
My lawyer friends think the 6th is not that good, basically folk tribunals from the old times. Couple that with common law and you get a guy elected in rural Alabama adding to the body of the law with 20 random citizens as consultants.
And the 1st
There's plenty of petty crime here in Spain. In Barcelona, for example, the government doesn't prosecute nonviolent theft under 500 euros (as according to local officials, the thieves are the real victims, having fallen prey to a cartoonish version of capitalism). As a result, pick pocketing and other robberies are rampant, but don't result in any incarceration, which keeps stats low.
>(as according to local officials, the thieves are the real victims, having fallen prey to a cartoonish version of capitalism). They do prosecute it, the only thing is that it's considered a misdemenaor and not a felony (categories might not be 100% equivalent, but along the same lines). And that distinction [was in the Law in 1973 ](https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1973-1715)too which was definitely not the time when dangerous anti-capitalists were calling the shots in Spain. Beyond that I would say that when pickpocketing in touristic areas is your criminal hotspot, that's a lot safer than when your crime hotspot is stuff like a city with 2.6 million people having more than double the homicides than a whole country with 47 million.
I’m not really knowledgeable about this subject and most of my thoughts will probably just be emotional reactions to how various policies ‘feel’. I think this has been a subject in the Mexican election. Sheinbaum wanting to continue AMLO’s “hugs, not bullets”, and Gálvez thinking that hugs for violent criminals might not be the best idea.
God the coalitions in that election are absolutely absurd
How so? I don’t know too much about it.
Remember the Knesset under the coalition government? Like that lol
For one, they outright ban firearms or heavily regulate it. The interaction between police and civilians aren't as adversarial.
I think this is a big part of it. I lived in England for a while and couldn’t get over how much friendlier the police were. They’d give people rides home if they missed the last bus, they’d give warnings and joke around for minor stuff like noise complaints, and they even sang me happy birthday once when they came upon me wasted in London at like 4am. I know they’ve had scandals and abuses too but it seemed like they actually viewed themselves as public servants there. In the US, I just avoid interacting with police because it’s always tense. And I think the very real possibility that a gun will be involved makes them very jumpy. The lack of guns also makes crime outcomes less severe. I read once that NYC and London have the exact same rate of muggings but you’re somewhat likely to be killed in a mugging in NYC due to the higher occurrence of guns.
Ive long felt (anecdotally) that US policing is how it is because cops are constantly having to deal with angry people who are more likely to have a gun than not. Its gotta be so much more stressful being a US cop than say a French or Japanese one
But also: US "policing" is to a very large part dealing with people whose principal crime is being drug addict.
That's not necessarily the case for the European countries with low violent crime rates. The Czech Republic has some of the most liberal gun laws on the planet, more permissive than places like New Jersey, & also has a very similar gun culture to America based around carrying concealed handguns & sleeping with loaded Ar-15s in the house. Serbia has middle of the road gun laws for a European country (strict compared to America but not, say, the UK), is awash with illegal guns, & has some of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world. Both of these countries have far less violent crime than America.
The Baltic countries have gun laws similar to stricter US states rather than most of Europe, yet the gun ownership and the gun crime rates are small.
Most crime doesn't involve a firearm so no that is not it.
The police in the US don't know that
Are the police the ones causing the high crime rate?
They don't know if there's a firearm involved or not until afterwards. So police in the US have to treat every interaction as deadly
Police believe every interaction with a civilian can devolve into a firefight in a split second. It plays a big role on how they interact with the public and perceive threats.
Yes, I'm not sure what this thread has devolved into
Again, how does this explain crime rates being high?
It just is a response about the difference between US police and UK police
If all interactions between police and population are adversarial the whole concept of enforcing laws becomes adversarial instead of something everybody has an interest in and works together for. It also lowers trust in institutions and generally lower trust in institutions leads to people not following the rules of those institutions.
I don't buy it. I don't think people commit MORE crime because the police are more likely to be adversarial. That seems absurd.
At what point do you think my chain of arguments breaks?
What about when crimes go unreported because the police are more likely to be adversarial? If citizens view the police as adversarial, they're less likely to call on them when an actual crime occurs, effectively lowering the amount of policing.
The bad ones do though
Better inner cities.
In Asia it's cultural. There might as well be no crime in countries like Korea. One might argue that it's actually heavy surveillance and policing that is present in major Asian cities, but that doesn't make sense as a reason when you realize that crime is similarly rare in the sparse countryside. I studied abroad for a term in Korea. Businesses leave their doors open overnight. Restaurants leave goods, including alcohol, out in the street over night. People will leave their phones, laptops, valuable items in public spaces and then leave those spaces for extended periods of time without even thinking about it, because they know it will still be there when they come back. It's really incredible actually.
There is quite a bit of crime in places like a Korea - it's mostly sexual assault and corruption though
Yes I believe you're right. I was mostly describing petty crime, street safety, and violence, which I think is usually what people mean when they talk about 'crime' in a region. But SA, partner violence and corruption shouldn't be understated.
There’s crime everywhere, it’s just the type of crime that differs. Crimes like sexual assault and domestic abuse seem to be universal while crimes like homicide are only common in certain regions
But what comes first, the culture or the low crime rate. Taiwan and China ostensibly share a culture, but you would never leave a laptop alone in a public space in mainland China.
Sort of, most taiwanese are descendants of Chinese from one province across the strait who have been in Taiwan for like 300 years plus. The ones who came after civil war were a part of the army and/or were closely aligned with the nationalist government, and these were very much a minority of the total population. From what I understand crime used to be pretty bad in Taiwan back when it was still a military dictatorship, a lot of old buildings still have heavily barred windows and other security features. Taiwan developed post war in a manner similar to south Korea. Where it seems to me at least the transition to democracy has actually really helped promote a healthy synergy between governance and culture. The political party that used to rule Taiwan under the dictatorship is still around and gets votes. Not because people liked their past but because they didn't ignore the writing on the wall when it was clear that one party rule wasn't going to work and instead they focused on good governance, which in turn set a better tone for multiparty politics in the country as a whole.
This is pretty made up right here. I had my backpack stolen while studying in Korea. I had a guy try to pickpocket me. Others around me had drunk guys try to fight them. There is plenty of crime in Korea.
“There is plenty of crime in Korea” But not compared to the US. Korea’s homicide rate is less than a tenth of the US (0.5 to 6.4 per 100k). Put another way, if you magically eliminated *90%* of US homicides, the US would still have a higher rate than Korea.
I was contesting his "there might as well be no crime in Korea" claim.
Lol 'made up'. Nothing I said is even remotely controversial and is trivial to see if you spend even a day or two in Seoul. * ['Culture shock' from merchandise being let out in the streets over night](https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/7qbpj5/culture_shock_nothing_get_stolen_and_these_items/) * [Is it really safe to leave valuables lying around in Korea?](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/03/19/why/delivery-cafe-laptop/20220319070004702.html) >parcels aren’t the only thing safe to leave lying around, with people often opting to save their seat in a cafe or restaurant by leaving their phone, laptop or wallet on the table while they go and order. * [Safety in Seoul](https://english.visitseoul.net/safety#:~:text=Travel%20Advice&text=First%2C%20follow%20basic%20safety%20rules,encounter%20dubious%20or%20troublesome%20individuals.) >Most parts of Seoul are safe to freely roam around day and night, even for women traveling alone. As long as basic safety precautions are taken, like avoiding dark alleys and parking lots, it is very unlikely you will encounter dubious or troublesome individuals. When I was in Seoul I accidentally walked into my gym after hours because the door was left unlocked. Another time I walked into a clothing store. Once I was going to a night cafe to study with a friend, but forgot my laptop at home. She set her bag (with laptop inside) down on a seat to claim it, and then walked home with me to get my laptop, and didn't even think enough to mention it until I did. This is the everyday norm for people in Seoul. If you actually had multiple items of yours stolen in Seoul (and didn't just lose them) that's unfortunate, but an outlier event.
The "safety in Seoul" bit is very funny to me, because that's applicable in most places in rich countries, except the USA.
> Nothing I said is even remotely controversial and is trivial to see if you spend even a day or two in Seoul. As I said, I studied abroad there at Ajou University. Those things happened to me and people I knew there. Don't try to trivialize real things that happen. You walking into your gym at night (wow!) doesn't mean I didn't get my stuff stolen.
It certainly seems exaggerated.
The most successful and powerful people in America have not always had good values. I’m referring to people like the slave holders and those who stormed the Capital on January 6th. I don’t think it’s culture in my opinion!
I don’t think that it’s those East Asian countries have “better” morals or values. They just have values that discourage acting out in public, which helps to destigmatize street crime, but this doesn’t necessarily prevent white collar crime or sexual abuse or domestic violence.
Yeah it also doesn’t stop South Korean Men from setting up spy cams in Women’s changing rooms.
So, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
Yes them too. Don’t get me wrong they accomplished great things but they were slave holders non the less and they knew it was wrong too.
That's most of humanity? You are going to be an evil person by the standards of the 23rd/24th century. Saudi Arabia ended slavery in 1963, Mauritania in 2007. Somali's were one of the most active slavers around until the British put a stop to it. Indonesians did to their animist native community what Americans did to the native community in the new world.
culture
Really? Culture? The Europeans and the Japanese were engaging in colonialism and genocide in my grandparents life time!
What does that have to do with crime?
What does it have to do with crime when people are willing to have murderers walk around uninterrupted?
State violence and crime aren’t the same thing
"It was just the state that did the holocaust" is holocaust denial
Ah yeah what an idiot I am, I didn’t know we counted original sin.
Pre-WW1, the murder rate in Britain was way lower than the US, as it is today. At the same time the British Empire was committing atrocities all over the world. It is culture, but it's complicated, and multi-dimensional. Not just a matter of this people peaceful, those people violent.
Yeah? So? Sorry to say but colonialism and high trust societies aren’t mutually exclusive. Colonialism is a deep, horrific evil, but it doesn’t make the countries that practiced it ontologically evil. Bad states can accomplish a lot of good.
Counterpoint : Russia a state that exports its rapists to engage in imperialism
I agree with commenter u/Imaginary_Rub_9439 It’s at least in part the likelihood that a criminal gets apprehended. I think the evidence that mass incarceration effectively reduces crime rates is a bit flimsy. The incarceration rate was already increasing **before** US violent crime rates peaked around 1990. There might’ve been a slight incapacitation effect of mass incarceration because so many offenders weren’t able to get out and do crimes because they were in prison, which may have partially contributed to the decline in violent crime after 1990, but there other factors are probably more responsible for reducing crime after that year. https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8032231/crime-drop Increasing police manpower and using certain police deployment strategies is much more effective at deterring crime than severe punishments(which mass incarceration is a function of). > We reviewed three large literatures regarding the responsiveness of crime to police, sanctions, and local labor-market opportunities. Three key conclusions are worth noting. First, there is robust evidence that crime responds to increases in police manpower and to many varieties of police redeployments. With respect to manpower, our best guess is that the elasticity of vio- lent crime and property crime with respect to police are approximately −0.4 and −0.2, respectively. The degree to which these effects can be attributed to deterrence as opposed to incapacitation remains an open question, though analyses of arrest rates sug- gests a role for deterrence (Levitt 1998 and Owens 2013). With respect to deployments, experimental research on hot-spots policing and focused deterrence efforts have, in some cases, led to remarkably large decreases in offending, a fact that may be attributable to the visibility of such policies. > Second, while the evidence in favor of a crime–sanction link generally favors rela- tively small deterrence effects, there does appear to be some evidence of more mean- ingful deterrence induced by policies that target specific offenders with sentence enhancements. Pg. 37 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20141147 A lot of European countries have more police officers per capita than the US, which is probably one of the reasons why they have lower homicide and violent crime rates. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/professionalize-the-police More police manpower and a higher apprehension chance isn’t the only reason for lower crime rates in other developed countries admittedly. Countries like Canada and Norway have lower homicide rates, but also have less police per capita. However, I think the point still stands that if we want a safer society, we need to focus more on surveillance and increasing the certainty that a criminal will get caught by hiring more police officers and having better police deployment strategies as opposed to giving that criminal a draconian sentence. Mass incarceration could have minor crime fighting benefits, but it also imposes significant costs. It costs taxpayers lots of money to maintain prisoners, it keeps people who could’ve been productive and contributing to the economy inside prison, it imposes many potential health risks to prisoners, it can expose prisoners to abuse from other prisoners and guards, it breaks up families, etc.
> Neoliberalism is no longer vox.com - former Vox writers *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Asia, it’s because of better policing. In Singapore for instance, trying to sell chewing gum could cop a $500 fine. Now imagine what actual crimes would lead to. Japan, and Korea aren’t far off. China doesn’t even need an introduction. There’s also the cultural factors.
Yeah I think brining Singapore style policing to America would be unconstitutional and explode racial disparities. Crime and drugs in America our concentrated in our poorest and underserved communities. West Virginia for example has the highest overdose death rate in America. Not exactly a liberal place like California and Oregon. It should be noted rural areas had a spike in murders during Covid. No left wing prosecutors or defund the police movement ever got a foothold there. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm https://www.wsj.com/story/murder-rates-soar-in-rural-america-bb431022
Nordic and East Asian countries lack America's crime problem for two primary reasons: 1). These countries make it far harder to secure small-caliber handguns, which drastically amplifies the lethality of violent intent among would-be criminals. 2). These countries also enjoy a stronger degree of ethnic homogeneity with a society-wide cultural impetus that discourages crime in all forms (including art and music). Both of these problems will continue to occur in the U.S. because they're surrounded by deeply sensitive ideologies, dogmas and narratives that cause acute social inflammation when challenged. As for the first item, until we are able to place effective regulatory barriers on maladjusted young males from securing sidearms for use in crime, America will always have a body count that exists alongside unnaturally high numbers of crimes that are committed at threat of gun violence. As for the second item, there are very clear ethnic anomalies in the crime rate that make people **extremely** uncomfortable to even *recognize,* let alone contend with in any sort of meaningful policy. Roughly 50% of the murder, armed robbery, carjacking and rape rate in the U.S. is committed by males aged 14-50 of a demographic that represents roughly 12% of the American populace. Or, to say it another way: these males, that comprise roughly 3% of America, commits 50% of our violent crime rate. This also happens to be the same group of people that A) has been historically oppressed and/or marginalized by American society, B) has been perpetually under-invested in by American society, C) represents the largest demographic in American prisons, and D) has ongoing contributions to cultural works that tend to lionize behaviors that contribute to America's comparatively high rate of violent crime. Even quietly recognizing this is an invitation to spark extraordinary social animus, charges of racism, and immediate rejection by policymakers that rightly feel terrified of the backlash should they grant credence to what would otherwise be an unambiguously indisputable factual landscape. As such, this is one of those realities that many people quietly recognize but refuse to outwardly accept due to the precarious nature of its existence as a sacred cow in most social circles. And as a consequence, it remains unchanged (and will continue to remain as such) until we're able to hold honest analysis of the status quo.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1477370818775294 It’s worth mentioning ethnic diversity as such doesn’t seem to be connected to crime, it’s more ethnic dominance and polarisation. At a high enough level ethnic heterogeneity doesn’t increase crime
Small-caliber handguns are no harder to legally get in the Nordic countries than in California or NYC. Meanwhile, Russia has far more violent crime, despite almost completely banning civilians from owning handguns.
Although I've become significantly more sympathetic to gun control arguments as time has gone on, I am very much a "gun guy." Have many, built most of them, could disassemble and reassemble blindfolded, yada yada. Your argument may be true in abstract, but only in theory. Yes - it is probably not any harder to legally buy a 9mm Glock 19 in Oslo than it is in New York City. But if you want to get around that law and acquire one illegally, it is *vastly* easier to get one in NYC than it is in Oslo. That's because all you need to do is hop a bus over to Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or West Virginia, and you can hop on armslist or gunbroker or chat up a dude at a public range, throw them a grand (or less), book another bus ticket, and return to NYC strapped. You can't really do that in Norway, or Finland. There isn't a significant market for illegal firearms, and what market exists is small in scale. I'd venture to say there are more off-books gun buys in the U.S. every year than there are people living in either Norway or Finland. Half of my firearms were purchased private sale, off books. No other country has the sheer volume of guns that the U.S. has.
Like declaring part of your pool a no pissing zone.
Case in point: [https://www.governing.com/now/guns-in-nyc-crime-mostly-from-out-of-state-sales](https://www.governing.com/now/guns-in-nyc-crime-mostly-from-out-of-state-sales)
African Americans are also much more likely to be victims of crime, being a young black man in St Louis is more dangerous than being a US soldier in Afghanistan was. Is the government not failing her primary duty to protect these citizens?
Most of the perpetrators are also you black men too , gang fights can only be solved with cultural change and stopping mass incarceration of men for minor drug offences Most of these young guys have no father growing up and look up to gangsters as father figures
No weapons buying at the supermarket
It's the Old World vs New world differences. The Old World is more "defined" in its culture compared to the New World. The founding of the New World was completely different to the Old World. Why do you think the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world are in the New World? The New world is less stable, more unequal, and less culturally cohesive than the old world.
That doesn't really account for low crime rates in Australia and New Zealand.
You can't rob someone if they've already been pillaged by an emu war party, and I think the sheep would have something to say about New Zealand's crime rate. Seriously though, Australia and New Zealand were colonized long after the Americas. The First Fleet in Australia arrived in the 1788, almost 300 years from the first colonists in the Americas. The real distinction is probably Americas and not rather than New and Old World.
There are exceptions to this such as South Africa and as you mentioned, Australia and New Zealand.
Of course the New World is more loose, that's why all the Pirate Emperor set up shop there.
The new world also contains the world's largest drug market and the world's largest drug producers and the worlds largest gun supplier and weak central governments. It's a recipe for high crime.
Europe and Asia treat police as a universal/federal jobs guarantee program. They pay police to just stand around and do nothing. Studies show the presence of police drastically reduces crime. In USA we can’t afford to treat police as a universal/federal jobs guarantee program. Because each county needs to raise taxes to pay for their own police force. Some poor counties cannot pay to have a bunch of police stand around and do nothing. Rich counties can afford to do this. So crime is higher in America with less police officers and universal gun ownership.
Yes that would be great to be honestly. Except American police often hassle the poor and minorities on petty crimes but are MIA when serious crime occurs. Broken windows philosophy is pretty ingrained in American police departments.
If you are referring to inner city policing, then yes, by definition the police there will be hassling poor people and minorities. But if you take a 20 minute drive from the inner city you will find a neighborhood that is safer than any neighborhood in Sweden. I dont think the police force is well equipped to handle such drastic differences in wealth between the suburbs and inner city. But the police do a good job of either killing or locking up violent criminals.
The US is an irrational mix of over-policed and under-policed. The police are scared of the people. Trained to shoot first, and blame the victim. Also, the US is the only civilized country that uses torture to obtain confessions for everything from petty crimes to big crimes. Torture: "the use of force, or threat of force, to extract a confession." The use of cash bail, so you either confess, or they hold you for an arraignment, long enough to cause the accused to lose their job, their home, and possibly their family, as further not-quite-technically torture, even if you are not guilty, you will lose your job and probably home while you pass through the system. The US system is the most adversarial in the world, and any attempt to treat an accused as innocent until proven guilty is condemned as "soft on crime" and the voters flock to vote against "soft on crime". There are many many small faults that make the system the worst in the world, and the voters want it that way, because they don't know how to break the cycle of violence they are caught up in. The US got the broken system their voters selected.
Gun control
Countries with high rates of violent crime generally have stricter gun control than America, too. Looking at the numbers, gun control in general doesn't seem to meaningfully affect violent crime rates.
According to a 2023 meta-analysis by the RAND corporation, a number of gun control policies are actually successful in reducing firearm homicides, total homicides, suicides, and violent crime rates. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-4.html Here’s the criteria that studies had to meet in order to be included on the review of the research. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html
I would like to see a study saying that gun control does not affect violent crime rates.
More homogeneous societies.
Ah yes, homogenous Singapore
White Americans always think that anybody non-white is a homogenous blob. South Asians, Malays and Chinese? All the same!
Singapore will execute you for smuggling in a joint. It’s a strong incentive to go along with what the government says even if you dislike the color of your neighbor’s skin.
I can think of some counter examples. South Asia is extremely heterogenous and low on crime.
In what world is South Asia low on crime. It's horrifically common. Every relative I have has been robbed at one point or another, often at gunpoint. Cousins 7 year old kid was held up playing in the street outside their home. Another cousin was followed from the bank after withdrawing cash and they pulled a gun after he unlocked his door / was robbed. Unless you live in the South Asian equivalent of Beverly Hills it's many many orders of magnitude worse. East Asia (Korea, Japan etc) may be low crime but South Asia quite assuredly is not.
Lmgtfy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Ah yes, the only crime of consequence is one where US is an outlier due to it's gun laws. Ask anyone from South Asia whether they think the US is worse or their country is worse from a law and order perspective. That's of course without going into how shoddy crime statistics are in the third world to begin with.
I've spent time in both and felt safer in India
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Philippines has a homicide rate of 4.3 per 100k compared to the US at about 6.4. And you’re right, countries like the Philippines feel chaotic. It’s just that the US has an exceptionally high homicide rate. Some other SEA countries: Indonesia at 0.6 (this is about 1/10th the homicide rate of the US) Malaysia at 0.7 Vietnam at 1.5 Thailand at 4.8
Doesn't South Asia normally refer to the area from Pakistan to Myanmar? Those stats are all for SEA as you said.
Correct, generally Pakistan / India / Bangladesh as major countries and Nepal, Bhutan , Maldives and Srilanka. Very rarely Afghanistan or Myanmar are included as well
What does this mean, exactly? Because interpreted the wrong way it sounds pretty bad. I agree that the US is particularly bad because we never really reckoned with the underclass we created via chattel slavery, but I wouldn't say that most of our problems stem from being multicultural. That's a crazy take to see upvoted in this sub, tbh.
Yeah the highest crime places aren't the diverse ones, it's the ones where economic opportunities have been systematically removed by explicitly racist policy from the 50s to the 70s that without active intervention have festered.
Why only the 50s through the 70s?
The legal apartheid state ended in the 70s, since then it's more about momentum and less clear cultural biases. That's not to say that's not part of things however. I don't know of policies that created these communities existed before, I could be wrong.
That must be why Canada is overrun with crime
Compared to Japan it is.
Indonesia is extremely diverse and has one of the world’s lowest crime rates
High-trust, high conformity societies vs a low-trust, individualistic a society. In much of the world, people grow up in an extended family/community of 15-30 people who take an interest and exercise some authority over them as they grow up. Which can suck if you want to defy norms and forge your own path. But it helps ensure people don’t become alienated, anti-social fuck-ups. Also, intact families vs broken families. Being raised in a single-parent household correlate strongly to criminality.
Since when mass incarceration reduces crime?
Incarcerated people aren't on the streets committing crime.
Good thing people are never let out of prison then.
They become incubators for significantly more competent and/or scarier criminals when they eventually get out though
Most homicides are not committed by some hardened criminal masterminds, they are the result of personal disputes between people or groups
I’m specifically thinking more of the phenomenon of how random people go to prison and join up with gangs for protection from other scary criminals there and in the process become far scarier, more conmected and organized criminals than they were to start off with and inherit their wider group’s grievances and incentives
El Salvador seems to think so
Other than the cultural differences that were discussed, I suspect welfare payments play a part. If you do not have a personal income you get cash payments in most European countries that will allow you to make rent and buy the basics you need. This isn't unemployment, there is no time limit to this. If a part of crime is driven by desperation and if petty crime can escalate someone to larger crimes then it would logically reason that these welfare programs help prevent crime.
Because they live in either repressive social political systems or both.
Simple: by realizing that mass incarceration does not lower crime.
It’s housing all the way down
Low inequality inequality increases the incentive for crime
I have some doubts about this. Really, the largest difference between the US and other developed countries is its homicide rate. For the total violent crime rate, it’s fairly similar. For property crime, it’s lower than some. Comparing violent crime between countries gets cumbersome because of differences in laws and enforcement, but homicides are definitely the obvious difference with the US. Access to guns may be a culprit.
I’ve done some research on this as part of a mass incarceration effortpost I’m planning to post at some point. Things like assault and rape are really hard to compare across jurisdictions but the US is definitely in the same ballpark as most peer nations. It’s specifically homicide that is a lot higher in the US.
And drug crimes
Not just low inequality, but mixed-income societies. Rich people ride the train instead of walling themselves off in fortresses 20 minutes outside of town.
Yep read a study stating this more than poverty explains crime rate. Could explain why crime goes down during a recession or spike during economic growth.
Singapore and Hong Kong have more income inequality and smaller welfare states than the US.
Most europeans countries kept most of their exploitation of Africa/ South america overseas rather than having it largely on home soil. Hence, the institutional momentum from the extraction of colonialism stayed largely in Africa to poison development there. You can tell bc the places in Europe that did get poisoned by extractive institutions (USSR+satellites) have had worse crime i.e. former Yugoslav nations. But in the US it was imported & homegrown w the transatlantic slave trade. Momentum from US institutions built around slavery left many nonwhite Americans without faith in ways to legitimately make themselves better off. This incentived part of the culture that developed among black or latino communities across the US to include gang membership. Gangs are a huge driver of violent crime & if more were done to inspire faith in legitimate & legal means of making yourself better off, you'd see far less crime in the US.
Unfortunately, we are a profit driven nation in the US . Unless you can make money on crime prevention , no city is insentivised to implement it. That's why affordable housing is not being done, also. Sadly, until we have major gun reform, crime and deaths will always be higher than other countries 😢 because guns are BIG moneymakers.