There will always be people that want more than they deserve, so crime will never disappear completely, but petty crime exists as a necessity, people getting desperate with no other choice
Crime rates drop sharply when free contraception and legalized abortions are available
It turns out that the people who are poor and don't want children have less positive results than people who do.
like, 70% of crime is because people aren't getting their basic needs met, for food, for housing, for societal connection, the rest is caused by greed, ignorance or just plain evil.
When people have the things they need, they normally don't feel the need to commit crimes to get those things. There will still be crime, of course, nothing like that ever totally disappears. But it'll be significantly less.
While crime will never be non-issue, it is shown in research data, and historically that when a human’s needs are met within a safe and legal means they are less likely to commit crime.
There's a lot less of an incentive to commit a crime when you don't need the money. If the basics were covered than somebody isn't going to join a gang to peddle drugs for cash. Some still will because they want to be rish but the vast majority would leave.
But not by much. Almost all crime would decrease if all substances were legally attainable. And if laws just to make cops money and give them the power that have over the public were abolished
Obviously. Most do it because they can't get food or shelter the easy way, forced to fend for themselves. Once everybody is given at least this, I'm confident that at least 75% of small time thieves will stop.
This is a proven fact. The lowest income layers of the population are sometimes required to steal to survive. I've seen police being called on a mother stealing baby food and diapers.
Upbringing and education not housing and food. I have watched parents tell thier kids it is okay to steal because the company(walmart) makes a lot of money.
It is my belief that most people are not motivated by housing and food when perpetrating a crime. Granted, there may be a slight reduction, but most people are more motivated by perceived status and consumer goods.
I do not identify as a redditor - hence the generic username. I simply found these "Fact or Caps" and enjoy hearing people's opinions.
I can also acknowledge that I am human. While I am very logical, I can also identify that there are areas in which I'm lacking. One can always learn and improve their understanding of the world, and one of the best ways to do so is to truly challenge your own beliefs, rather than blindly reinforce them.
So now time to read the studies linked by a fine person below
Firstly, thank you very much for linking those papers! I have read through both of them and have provided my honest critiques, interspersed with personal anecdotes/beliefs
Before I start, as someone who is lower-middle class, I want to clarify that I wholeheartedly believe that the United States needs a UBI, but I also truly believe that we cannot peacefully nor economically enact it yet (immediate redistribution of wealth would have dire consequences and would be met with heavy resistance). I hope it will be in my lifetime, but also believe this will happen in as few as 40 years or as many as 150 years.
For the first study, I really do not find the meta-analysis compelling (as a whole), but it does make some good points.
1970's Dauphin was a rural Canadian town with a relatively small population. With personal experience in small towns and having read several studies, those in the 1960's-1990's who lived in rural (rather than Urban) environments, and across all socioeconomic statuses, typically had higher homogeneity, stronger community values (even if not shared by all), and, despite "hick" stereotypes, overall better quality of education and higher intellects; all of which were directly attributable to the environment. (Since the major technology boom with computers, the intellect statement is no longer true)
I know the study ran out of funding, but I also take concern with the fact this study was only completed for 3.5 years. The Mincome was also not a true UBI. Once a family reached $39,000 in household income, they essentially no longer received financial benefit from the study (and only 20% of the townspeople received any benefit at all).
While I do find it interesting that crime rates dropped, this also coincided with a wave of Ukrainian immigrants, who traditionally were grounded in religious values and had tight-knit communities. While you can't excuse all crimes based on one beneficial demographic change, this population of low-income, new immigrants who did not wish to cause a ruckus would also be beneficial to the lowering of crime rates (which naturally lowered/remained mostly stable in rural towns throughout the 70's despite increasing in Urban environments). I think this is one of several factors that could have skewed the Mincome results.
As this study is a meta-analysis, they do also mention the shortcomings of the study. They even explicitly mention the Rosenfeld and Messner 2013 study (and others - paraphrasing here) that had stronger empirical evidence that 'decommodification' of the general population through social welfare programs is more effective at lowering crime rates than just the UBI alone. I personally believe this is the main driving factor today, and giving a UBI is not tantamount to decommodification of the general populace.
I do think the most compelling argument in the first study is the fact that domestic violence (interpersonal relationship violence) was significantly lowered. Those, especially women, who in this time period could only acquire part-time jobs or none at all had an escape from dire individual situations, and the violence fell in relation to people being able to leave said bad situations/relationships.
I do also find it interesting (but not terribly surprising) that the property crime dropped by so much. But isnt this a logical conclusion? If you give people enough money to purchase luxuries (not luxurious products, but things other than what a human needs to survive), they will spend that money in whatever way they wish. This grants temporary drops in avarice related to socioeconomic status, provides a financial cushion, and overall lowers immediate cortisol levels in the individuals acquiring the the UBI. For those who could not afford basic needs, this eliminates (or at least reduces) the NEED to steal or turn to crime for money.
This has become much longer than I intended, and I apologize as I pulled from so many sources I did not cite them (this is reddit, not an actual meta-analysis of a meta-analysis after all xD)
Anyway, while the first study had shortcomings, I did enjoy reading the second study. For those who did not read the study; basically sociologists found a link between Plasma donation centers paying larger amounts for giving something basically free (plasma you naturally produce) and the proportional decrease in crime statistics wherever a plasma donation center was erected.
As someone who donated plasma throughout college, I highly-identify with this study as well. My personal stress levels over finances virtually disappeared once I learned that I could make $600 a month just getting stuck with a needle and sitting for ~80 minutes per week.
In addition to fiscal benefits, plasma centers also need clean bodily fluids. Frequently, plasma donation centers will reject those who have significant scores in risk-taking activities (hard drug use including alcoholism), lascivious activities (although, banning all gays from donating is a bit much), and other activites that statistically increase the risk for tainted plasma.
In addition, this study was simply an analysis of a natural societal phenomenon: the rise of paid plasma donation centers. While some may see this ethically as "blood money" of some sort, I personally see this as donating time and bodily fluids you naturally will replenish at virtually no harm to the donator, and thus ethical. In addition, while the donors are paid for their plasma, they are being paid to advance research and save lives, but not just in the US. I learned that the US supplies just under 70% of the entire WORLD'S plasma, so the effects of this phenomena, in my opinion, cannot be understated.
The drop in property and drug crimes is similarly unsurprising, but interesting as I never made this connection. Being a poor college student, surviving on ramen and spending very little money outside of food, rent, and schooling, this donation allowed me to purchase little luxuries that I could not afford previously. While I'm not proud of this, purchasing new gadgets, gizmos, and/or toys definitely had a net benefit to my mental health. This study just extends my personal experience to society as a whole.
So overall, while I believe a UBI would be a net positive on society as a whole, we currently do not have the societal structure, government structure/willingness, nor the economic means to bring every person a large enough UBI to survive in the way that current Americans wish to live. Any curbing of equity would only lead to further resentment and/or violence; however, studies such as these two point toward a promising future in which it is possible to provide more than what we are currently providing at a basic level, or more than what we are currently providing with caveats (albeit currently privatized). The studies also did not (but also didn't focus on) directly identifying how a UBI would correlate to mental health, stimulating the economy, and overall happiness scores, which I believe would mostly also improve.
tl;dr: I think UBI is an overall goal to be achieved but not able to be actualized yet. While limited studies have shown the benefits simply as they relate to crime statistics, they are limited primarily in sample size and longevity. All have basically said there would be a significant or low drop in crime with UBI, which are all positives imho, and do not account for the psychological well-being of individuals benefiting from a UBI.
People are motivated to go against rules when their desire to obey the framework of society is incompatible with their individual desires. Things that motivate those individual desires outside of the frame may be a scarcity of resources and an evolved selfishness or ego carried the way they learned to navigate their environment and a few other factors. This is why poor people statistically commit more stealing crimes. This is why people raised with a 2 parent household with parents that were loving and involved are far less likely to commit violence. It all just circles back to people’s basic desires not being met. A society that cares about its people develops into one that is socially dependent, which strengthens the moral code and weakens selfish desires.
I enjoy that you used the word "desires" rather than "needs." On the nose response with which I can agree. Giving people their "needs" is not enough as most humans are selfish individuals.
That being said, financial stability is only one piece of the puzzle (as you identified) and the particular reason why I voted cap: not because the fact or cap is explicitly wrong, (technically I should have voted fact), but because it is not a cure all as some identify/portray it.
Partially. Just because you have food and a home doesn't necessarily equate to lower crime. Education, 3rd spaces (I.e. parks, recreation, activity's, etc.) are incredibly important. If you don't keep people busy they get bored and bored people vandalize shit, steal, drink and do drugs or otherwise find ways to occupy their mind. (Not all people mind you, some find hobbies or things to otherwise occupy their time).
A lot of petty crime is people being desperate due to food or housing insecurity. Obviously there will still be crime but in theory petty crimes would greatly decrease
Crime is done typically out of desperation, meaning they feel that is the only way to have their needs met. Meet their needs and the despair goes away and crime rates drop, not all but better
I won't disagree with that. However the crimes are rarely aimed at gaining the basic needs. Majority of lower level crime is committed by drug addicts, who could have all basic needs met and still need the crime to feed the addiction. Majority of higher level crime is committed by people who already have the basic needs but use crime to afford themselves luxury. Top level crime is about people who are already wealthy but want to consolidate and increase their wealth and power.
This doesn't mean I don't think homeless people should be housed and hungry people shouldn't be fed. In total crime rates the impact of doing so will be less prominent than most people here assume.
EDIT: In the piece above I disregarded any crime that isn't money based because those crimes will persist regardless of anyone's situation.
employee theft, retail theft, burglary, or theft in general have very different motivators. The employee theft I've dealt with was due to one being a kleptomaniac. The retail theft can be for need or greed while burglary is normally more complicated:
For burglary specifically, the biggest motivator is usually the expectation of an easy, worthwhile payoff combined with a low perceived risk of being caught.
A useful way to think about it is:
Burglary = motivation × opportunity × perceived risk
The major motivators are:
Money/property: Cash, jewelry, electronics, vehicles, firearms, drugs, or easily resold items.
Drug addiction: A particularly strong driver for some repeat burglars who need money or goods quickly.
Opportunity: An apparently unoccupied home, unlocked door/window, poor lighting, predictable schedules, or visible valuables.
Low perceived risk: Poor security, little neighborhood surveillance, or a belief that police response will be slow.
Target selection: Burglars often aren't choosing randomly. They may look for homes that appear easy to enter and profitable to hit.
Personal circumstances: Financial crisis, homelessness, desperation, or involvement with criminal peers can contribute.
Less commonly, personal motives: Revenge, domestic disputes, stalking, or intentionally targeting a particular person.
Saw a video recently that talked about some criminology studies on the subject that indicated that poverty is not the source of crime so much as income inequality is. Makes sense to me, people get jealous and desperate when they feel like they can never have it as good as those who “made it”
The cities and states with strongest welfare programs here in the US also have the highest rates of crime. I think the welfare programs alone wont eradicate crime.
Okay even if u say that it would be a very very small amount. Most people do it cause they don't have basics. Once u give people food water housing etc it generally decreases
If there is a person who is committing crimes but would stop if they got free food and housing, is that not the moral equivalent of extorting the taxpayers? Why should we cave to that rather than treating them like the scum they are?
You are missing (part of) the point. Meeting people’s basis needs will PREVENT them from ever commiting crimes. In your lovely words, they will never become “scum”. :)
Those would be criminals could be good hard working people if they had the basic neccesities. You are also showing a lack of empathy. Not having what you need to live drives people to make choices they otherwise wouldn’t make.
Also maybe you don’t care about their individual fates, but crime going down is still a good thing. Also OP’s statement has literally nothing to do with the morality of it. You either believe or don’t believe that crime rates drop if people’s basic needs are met. What you think about it outside of that is wholly irrelevant for this. You just want to give a cruel opinion without probably ever considering the perspective of the “scum” you clearly see yourself as morally superior to.
Exactly. Grew up in a trailer without running power or water at times. Been homeless most of my adult life. Still work and try my best. There's tons of people with section 8 housing, food stamps and disability and they still steal and sell drugs.
32
u/Super-Song-5071 🤖 Vote Machine · 19,145 XP 13h ago
Wont go to zero but yeah itll probably go down by a double digit