Comment by pas
16 days ago
and still. limited resources means some crimes will go unpunished.
let's start with the ones above $1,000 first, hm?
16 days ago
and still. limited resources means some crimes will go unpunished.
let's start with the ones above $1,000 first, hm?
The interesting thing about thresholds is that antisocial behavior models itself to the threshold, whether by conscious awareness or by an evolutionary pattern.
https://sfist.com/2026/05/14/police-arrest-man-accused-of-re...
structuring is illegal for tax evasion too!
obviously if someone is a repeat offender then as they cross the threshold, chop-chop, straight to jail, charge them with the whole batch of crimes together.
it doesn't mean keep no records of crimes and don't respond at all.
Question: do you advocate for police to maintain dossiers on people's activities in order to arrest them once some combination of those activities cross the threshold? Like KYC for shoplifters? Do you think these records should be jurisdictionally/geographically limited?
1 reply →
Criminals have some brains. What do you think they'll do when they figure out that crimes under $1k go unpunished?
Look what happened with shoplifters.
Doesn’t that prove actually that the act of theft is not some calculated needs based negotiation in need of “the right threshold” to deter crime?
Like fare hopping, first half of my life i thought how unfair that i have to drone away as a tool of society and pay like a shmuck meanwhile these freeloaders have happily escaped the matrix.
second half of life i realized being unwilling or unable to pay $2.50 for public transist is an issue between that person and their life situation. If that’s what they need, I support the subsidy.
safe transit is important exactly for the people who barely have a few dollars for transit. subsidized tickets are the way to go. by enabling and allowing fare evasion for those who need it unfortunately allows those to get in who don't need to.
https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260908
1 reply →
yeah we have extremely recent examples of this philosophy playing out and people are here defending it. It's bonkers!
> let's start with the ones above $1,000 first, hm?
The criminals start with the ones below $1,000 and then progress above. If you start punishing it earlier, you won't have to deal with as many above $1,000 crimes in the first place.
If you can’t pay for your next meal $20 might as well be $2 thousand or $20 thousand. Thats why overdraft fees are exploitative.
A person doesn’t steal a sandwich from 7-11, not get caught, then suddenly realize they can drain unsuspecting grandmas’ bank accounts by implementing a long con through masquerading as a long lost nephew through Facebook.
Which <1000 crime did maddof start with?
Your claim makes for a good sound bite but its just not how it works. Subway evasion isn’t a gateway crime.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard that some big box stores like Target and Walmart allow shoplifters to get away with petty crime but save all evidence of these crimes to one day prosecute once the total shoplifted goes above the threshold of petty crime. Sometimes, these people would be goaded into this lifestyle by people who have agreements with Loss Prevention teams. Everyone wins except the shoplifter.
How is one earning money through graffiti damage
Ah yes, the graffiti artist to bank robber pipeline.. well done.
So mug a rich person, deal with it. Mug a normal person and ignore it.
Well that would be assault (at least, battery probably too), so wouldn’t fall under the hypothetical $1000 threshold.
Pick pocket then. Or shop list. Steal someone’s $700 car and you’re fine, steal a Mercedes and the full force of the law comes down.
[dead]