Because it rarely really solves the actual problem while creating a lot of spill on damage and possibly furthering violence. See the US war on drugs or Duterte’s mass executions in the Philippines for very drastic examples.
Okay, and what would “incredibly enforcing it” look like in your opinion?
You could establish longer criminal sentences. But longer sentences generally don’t have a higher deterent effect and you just end up with people who have been isolated from society longer or are harder to integrate.
You could make it easier to arrest people/have criminal proceedings, but that will also mean more innocent people will be subjected to harsh measures and grow disdainful of the police.
You could increase police presence in general. But that is also likely to harbour mistrust and have more people subject to unfair scrutiny and would probably to little to prevent the crimes we are talking about here.
And mind you, all these measures will be much more likely to target migrants who already might have a not too rosy view of law enforcement and general society, so you’re always risking exacerbating the same societal issues that are also contributing to the crimes.
And if you look at societies in general, those with the harshest most authoritarian rules don’t really tend to be the most peaceful, crime free ones, but rather harsher rules and a harsher society tend to go in lockstep. Because violence and harshness tend to breed more violence and harshness and the fact that one of the sides enacting the violence is the state and the supposed “good guys” doesn’t magically change that.
Of course that doesn’t mean that there’s no place for harsher laws or tougher measures in certain situations ever. But it definitely means that the harder you hit, the more precise you have to be, if you don’t want things to fire back on you. Which is a lot easier said than done.
Good luck Sweeden. Gang violence is really hard to solve, and the “tough-on-crime” politics is damaging. Here’s hoping you can thread that needle.
How is tough on crime damaging?
Because it rarely really solves the actual problem while creating a lot of spill on damage and possibly furthering violence. See the US war on drugs or Duterte’s mass executions in the Philippines for very drastic examples.
Being tough on violent gangs causes a lot of damage? Can you elaborate on this?
Drugs shouldn’t be considered criminal so I agree with you there. But violence, robbery, absolutely should be incredibly enforced.
Okay, and what would “incredibly enforcing it” look like in your opinion?
You could establish longer criminal sentences. But longer sentences generally don’t have a higher deterent effect and you just end up with people who have been isolated from society longer or are harder to integrate.
You could make it easier to arrest people/have criminal proceedings, but that will also mean more innocent people will be subjected to harsh measures and grow disdainful of the police.
You could increase police presence in general. But that is also likely to harbour mistrust and have more people subject to unfair scrutiny and would probably to little to prevent the crimes we are talking about here.
And mind you, all these measures will be much more likely to target migrants who already might have a not too rosy view of law enforcement and general society, so you’re always risking exacerbating the same societal issues that are also contributing to the crimes.
So what exactly would you suggest?
And if you look at societies in general, those with the harshest most authoritarian rules don’t really tend to be the most peaceful, crime free ones, but rather harsher rules and a harsher society tend to go in lockstep. Because violence and harshness tend to breed more violence and harshness and the fact that one of the sides enacting the violence is the state and the supposed “good guys” doesn’t magically change that.
Of course that doesn’t mean that there’s no place for harsher laws or tougher measures in certain situations ever. But it definitely means that the harder you hit, the more precise you have to be, if you don’t want things to fire back on you. Which is a lot easier said than done.
Can you provide an example?
An example for which part?