I realised that my statement can easily be interpreted this way, even though that wasn’t my original thought process.
My point was to emphasise that crime will always be there — so it’s a pipe dream to design a crime-free society. A more practical approach would be to design a society that doesn’t get crippled by crime, and works despite crime — one that is crime-proof.
What does it feel like to live in a crime-proof society? In case of some wrongdoing, swift justice happens 90 out of 100 times — a society where the downside of committing a crime is pretty high. Basically, you should be shitting your pants if you committed theft or something worse because there’s a strong chance you are gonna get caught.
Do we need more police, surveillance, etc., to achieve that? Maybe, as long as the pros are significantly more than the cons.
For one, we need more police for sure — especially if the police system is heavily understaffed like India. Not just “more” police, we also need “more capable” police — whom we can respect and look up to, and who give us cold sweat when we think of breaking the law.
More surveillance, stronger punishment, etc., are debatable, and there may not be any universal answer. In other words, it depends.
If it’s the wild west, we probably need more surveillance. People’s lives are more important than privacy in that case. Probably, we also need stricter laws against wrongdoers, so that people can begin to trust the system.
So many thoughts and rebuttals in my mind. I'll reply to every sentence that begs the same:
"to design a society that doesn’t get crippled by crime, and works despite crime"
1. It's important to ask if cities can be designed in the first place. What makes a city? It's people or it's buildings or the volume of commerce or something else?
2. And building anti fragility is tough. Right now, crime is rampant but people still go about their jobs, travel, commute, etc. Sometimes Sec. 144 is imposed, sure but economic considerations have already built such a city, in my opinion.
"swift justice happens 90 out of 100 times — a society where the downside of committing a crime is pretty high"
1. This was alarming to me. Primarily because I always approach issues through the axiom of: all human argument is an argument over definitions. What constitutes a crime? That's a serious question. Because even now, crime is divided between criminal vs civil. And the police in India regularly slap both in an FIR to increase conviction rates.
2. Swift justice sounds like majoritarian rule/encounter killing - to me - because the entire judicial process exists to prevent swift justice. To prevent the rule of law become the law of the jungle.
"Maybe, as long as the pros are significantly more than the cons."
- a classic ethical dilemma. Be consequentialist or a deontological?
Greatest good vs individual action.
- pro vs con is the wrong frame, I believe. I look at it more from the Law of Unintended Consequences frame.
More surveillance involves data mining, profiling, ID systems, and centralized control of monitoring.
More police could also mean more distrust in specific communities, and the forced fulfillment of quotas (these many challans by this quarter, these many arrests by this month, etc.). This lowers the standard of a crime.
Very insightful comment. These are good questions!
“What makes a city?”
Rather than thinking it from the point of view of a designer, I like to think from the point of view of a city dweller. What do they want? What is important for them? What kind of place do they want to live in? I think it becomes pretty easy to answer.
“Crime is rampant but people still go about their jobs, travel, commute…”
Again, I like to see things from the point of view of an individual. I’ve lived in Delhi and Mumbai. While a female would be relatively safe to go out at night in Mumbai, they would not be so in Gurgaon.
There is crime everywhere, but when you “feel” that probability of crime happening very often is very high, I won’t call the city crime-proof.
A simple litmus test is asking citizens, “Do you feel safe here?” and see the results.
“What constitutes a crime?”
Civil and criminal are legal terms. From the point of view of the victim, should there be any difference?
“Swift justice sounds like majoritarian rule/encounter killing”
Borrowing from Gerry Spence, “Justice is a feeling.” If a citizen feels “safe” and has the belief that “justice” will be served, I’m okay with whatever course it takes.
“Be consequentialist or a deontological?”
Whatever ensures “peace” in the long run.
I usually don’t stick to labels. They might be good in categorising but they often screw up our judgement.
In these complex matters, there would always be unintended consequences. The goal is to define guardrails to keep them in check, as much as possible.
Instead of pro vs con I would see it as upside v downside. The decision should have more longterm upside than longterm downside.
“More police could also mean more distrust in specific communities…”
This I believe comes down to designing good incentive systems to keep unintended practices/consequences in check.
“More surveillance involves data mining, profiling, ID systems, and centralised control of monitoring.”
Not necessarily. There were societies before this was possible.
I also see designing a city and the rules/laws as work in progress. So, nothing is set in stone. All decisions, especially those that have major consequences should be reversible. But we have to start somewhere.
Hi Abhishek 🤟
New subscriber here!
Really liked this post.
Just as I was about to close this window, a tiny thought (pun intended) arose, "what does he mean by crime-proof society?"
More surveillance, more police, more guns, or something else?
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Hey Ishan, that’s a great question.
I realised that my statement can easily be interpreted this way, even though that wasn’t my original thought process.
My point was to emphasise that crime will always be there — so it’s a pipe dream to design a crime-free society. A more practical approach would be to design a society that doesn’t get crippled by crime, and works despite crime — one that is crime-proof.
What does it feel like to live in a crime-proof society? In case of some wrongdoing, swift justice happens 90 out of 100 times — a society where the downside of committing a crime is pretty high. Basically, you should be shitting your pants if you committed theft or something worse because there’s a strong chance you are gonna get caught.
Do we need more police, surveillance, etc., to achieve that? Maybe, as long as the pros are significantly more than the cons.
For one, we need more police for sure — especially if the police system is heavily understaffed like India. Not just “more” police, we also need “more capable” police — whom we can respect and look up to, and who give us cold sweat when we think of breaking the law.
More surveillance, stronger punishment, etc., are debatable, and there may not be any universal answer. In other words, it depends.
If it’s the wild west, we probably need more surveillance. People’s lives are more important than privacy in that case. Probably, we also need stricter laws against wrongdoers, so that people can begin to trust the system.
Hope this answers your question to some extent.
So many thoughts and rebuttals in my mind. I'll reply to every sentence that begs the same:
"to design a society that doesn’t get crippled by crime, and works despite crime"
1. It's important to ask if cities can be designed in the first place. What makes a city? It's people or it's buildings or the volume of commerce or something else?
2. And building anti fragility is tough. Right now, crime is rampant but people still go about their jobs, travel, commute, etc. Sometimes Sec. 144 is imposed, sure but economic considerations have already built such a city, in my opinion.
"swift justice happens 90 out of 100 times — a society where the downside of committing a crime is pretty high"
1. This was alarming to me. Primarily because I always approach issues through the axiom of: all human argument is an argument over definitions. What constitutes a crime? That's a serious question. Because even now, crime is divided between criminal vs civil. And the police in India regularly slap both in an FIR to increase conviction rates.
2. Swift justice sounds like majoritarian rule/encounter killing - to me - because the entire judicial process exists to prevent swift justice. To prevent the rule of law become the law of the jungle.
"Maybe, as long as the pros are significantly more than the cons."
- a classic ethical dilemma. Be consequentialist or a deontological?
Greatest good vs individual action.
- pro vs con is the wrong frame, I believe. I look at it more from the Law of Unintended Consequences frame.
More surveillance involves data mining, profiling, ID systems, and centralized control of monitoring.
More police could also mean more distrust in specific communities, and the forced fulfillment of quotas (these many challans by this quarter, these many arrests by this month, etc.). This lowers the standard of a crime.
Long comment, I know.
But I trust you to understand ☕
Very insightful comment. These are good questions!
“What makes a city?”
Rather than thinking it from the point of view of a designer, I like to think from the point of view of a city dweller. What do they want? What is important for them? What kind of place do they want to live in? I think it becomes pretty easy to answer.
“Crime is rampant but people still go about their jobs, travel, commute…”
Again, I like to see things from the point of view of an individual. I’ve lived in Delhi and Mumbai. While a female would be relatively safe to go out at night in Mumbai, they would not be so in Gurgaon.
There is crime everywhere, but when you “feel” that probability of crime happening very often is very high, I won’t call the city crime-proof.
A simple litmus test is asking citizens, “Do you feel safe here?” and see the results.
“What constitutes a crime?”
Civil and criminal are legal terms. From the point of view of the victim, should there be any difference?
“Swift justice sounds like majoritarian rule/encounter killing”
Borrowing from Gerry Spence, “Justice is a feeling.” If a citizen feels “safe” and has the belief that “justice” will be served, I’m okay with whatever course it takes.
“Be consequentialist or a deontological?”
Whatever ensures “peace” in the long run.
I usually don’t stick to labels. They might be good in categorising but they often screw up our judgement.
Two related essays:
https://coffeeandjunk.substack.com/p/ruthless-truth
https://coffeeandjunk.substack.com/p/thinking-complexly
“Pro vs con is the wrong frame, I believe.”
In these complex matters, there would always be unintended consequences. The goal is to define guardrails to keep them in check, as much as possible.
Instead of pro vs con I would see it as upside v downside. The decision should have more longterm upside than longterm downside.
“More police could also mean more distrust in specific communities…”
This I believe comes down to designing good incentive systems to keep unintended practices/consequences in check.
“More surveillance involves data mining, profiling, ID systems, and centralised control of monitoring.”
Not necessarily. There were societies before this was possible.
I also see designing a city and the rules/laws as work in progress. So, nothing is set in stone. All decisions, especially those that have major consequences should be reversible. But we have to start somewhere.