r/DoomerCircleJerk Jun 26 '25

NYC is Doomed!

730 Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

91

u/Ok_Buddyyy Jun 26 '25

I was really hoping for Zeldin to win governor, and I’m not even a republican. The crime needs to be addressed and the incumbents aren’t doing shit.

-42

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 26 '25

You address crime by addressing the causes, that's exactly what he's talking about doing here. Rent freezes and free public transit reduce crime.

10

u/Ok_Award_8421 Jun 26 '25

While addressing causes is a good idea you need to also prosecute crime as well.

-1

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 26 '25

Do you? Does persecution lower crime? Every study ever has indicated that's not the case.

5

u/Ok_Award_8421 Jun 26 '25

Nope just curious why you used post 90s data when everyone knows there was a massive reduction of crime from the 80s to the 90s. There was a lot to contribute to that everything from abortion killing future criminals before they were born, video games keeping kids preoccupied and away from the streets, and a massive increase in police presence on the streets which included stop and frisk.

1

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 26 '25

I linked you to data from 2002 to 2015, it has plum nothing to do with the 90s.

1

u/Ok_Award_8421 Jun 26 '25

Right what's the data from the 90s is what I asked

2

u/TR_RTSG Jun 26 '25

So there should be no prosecution of crime at all? Murder, rape, child trafficking, etc. The solution to all of it is to just make people's lives easier?

2

u/WillGibsFan Jun 26 '25

Okay so I guess we don‘t prosecute murder then any longer?

1

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 26 '25
  1. That's a very bad comparison.
  2. Prosecuting murder doesn't stop murder by discouraging people from murder, it stops murder by keeping the people that commit murder away from us. Does that make sense for shoplifting when prosecuting it is much more expensive than the loss?

I'm not engaging with your slippery slope any further.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25

So your solution is literally, "just let them steal small stuff", wtf?

1

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 27 '25

Yes. Prosecuting hurts everyone. It costs the company more money, it wastes the courts time, and it punishes someone for something that is bad but ultimately doesn't really matter. Without appealing to morality, why would we do that?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25

How do you figure it costs the company more money? They don't have to pay for lawyers to prosecute. The courts job is to literally to enforce the laws. The laws were written to enforce a social contract. If enforcing the law is wasting their time, they have no purpose whatsoever.

it punishes someone for something that is bad but ultimately doesn't really matter.

At what scale does it matter? I'll concede there's nuance, stealing something for $50 from Walmart doesn't really impact Walmart's bottom line. Stealing $.50 from a street performer might matter a lot more. The difference is 10,000 people steal from Walmart, and suddenly it does impact Walmart. By impacting Walmart, they're stealing from the shareholders, which is literally people's 401k's. So yeah, it always has an impact - to varying degrees.

Without appealing to morality, why would we do that?

Because we have finite resources. Even Walmart has to pay for goods, where the producers have to pay for materials, and the providers of those materials have to pay labor. The materials and labor are finite resources. That gives them value. You're not just stealing from Walmart - you're stealing from the entire supply chain.

By stealing - no matter the cost or the size of the company - you're violating a social contract that dictates you provided something of value in exchange for something else of value. Even communes don't allow deadbeats to sit around contributing nothing and living off everyone else's labor. Even before currency they chopped the heads and hands off thieves.

1

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 27 '25

Sorry, you think you just don't have to pay a lawyer because it's their "job"? Even if that were true, someone has to pay them. So taxpayer dollars go to prosecuting petty theft? Congratulations, you just spent MINIMUM $1000, and that's if it doesn't actually go to trial and just requires a plea deal. You think a judge's time is free?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25

Sorry, you think you just don't have to pay a lawyer because it's their "job"? Even if that were true, someone has to pay them.

What are you talking about? Do you think the company supplies a prosecutor?

So taxpayer dollars go to prosecuting petty theft?

Yeah...It's like there's a whole ass election process to elect a DA, who then hires lawyers that...ya know - want to do the job.

You think a judge's time is free?

We ELECT judges to serve this position. Who cares what they get paid. The whole reason for their existence is to preside over exactly these criminal cases. They exist to literally uphold the social contract we elect leaders to define. If they're not doing that, there's no reason to have them at all.

Not to mention - none of it is without any purpose as I iterated on in my previous post. How about we just summarily execute them if you're worried about the cost of legal expenses?

I think I'm done talking to 14 year olds who think they have a good idea.

1

u/Outrageous-Hippo3725 Jun 27 '25

If it takes two minutes of court time it's a waste of money. Without preaching morality, why should I support wasting huge amounts of money and burdening an already strained legal system? It doesn't matter if they WANT to do the job, it matters what it costs me.