> Flock would have detected, but maybe not prevented, two of these cases
I'm glad you acknowledge this, because it highlights what has irritated me about the discussion of crime in the last ~6 years. People seem to expect that crime can be prevented. Our criminal justice system and system of civil rights can only intervene after the crime has occurred, which means it won't prevent anything. Maybe I've misread you personally, and I don't mean to put it all on you, but I think people with your position tend to vastly overstate the deterrent factor of proposed interventions.
Further, only reacting to crime and not seeking to "punish" people before a crime has occurred is exactly how our system should work. When reasoning about crime prevention, a large number of people seem to want police to intervene preemptively. Or they want to punish offenders out of proportion to actual crimes, to prevent recidivism that hasn't happened yet. This type of thinking seems to slide pretty quickly into the "pre-crime" concept of dystopian scifi. We called that stuff dystopian for a reason.
In my opinion what we should do instead to prevent crime is to promote social cohesion, in the form of preventing income and wealth disparity, funding a strong social safety net, help for drug addicts and the mentally ill, etc. People who live happier, more stable lives will have less reason to turn to crime.
(I will also note, crime is lower everywhere in America vs. a few decades ago. Violent crime peaked in the mid 1990s. So it is in some sense a misguided endeavor completely, focusing on problems that are relatively unlikely.)
1. I don't think crime can really be prevented per se, but location-based crime can be discouraged and deterred. Having cameras in public, highly visible places, might make violent criminals (especially professional ones) think twice before committing crimes in these places. This potentially creates safe routes for vulnerable individuals (women, children) where they are less likely to be a victim of crime when following these routes. Privacy-minded individuals willing to take additional risk might opt out by driving a different route.
2. I agree on social cohesion, but this seems impossible in USA, which is a country that is/was a melting pot of immigrants from every place in the world. Embracing a national identity seems like the natural solution for creating social cohesion, but nationalism seems unpopular with half of the country (USA invasions don't help the cause). What is your proposed solution?
3.I will also note, crime is lower everywhere in America vs. a few decades ago. Violent crime peaked in the mid 1990s. This is a macro high level generalization; generally true but not everywhere. I am currently located in the midwest and anecdotally saw crime increase in a small city from 2018-2023 (people I know affected were victims of crime,visible increase in homelessness and drifters). Admittedly, crime levels in 2024-2025 in my region seem to be shrinking, but it's too early to determine probable cause.
Gemini AI had this to say about crime levels, agreeing with your opinion but with caveats:
When looking at the broad stretch from the 1990s peak to 2025, the national story is one of a massive, sustained decline. In 1991, the violent crime rate was roughly 758 per 100,000 people; by 2025, that figure is estimated to have dropped by nearly 60%, reaching its lowest levels in nearly 50 years.
However, the "map of violence" has shifted. While the 1990s were defined by high-intensity violence in massive coastal hubs (NYC, LA), the 2020–2025 era has seen crime "decentralize" into the South, the Midwest, and even rural New England.
I'm glad you acknowledge this, because it highlights what has irritated me about the discussion of crime in the last ~6 years. People seem to expect that crime can be prevented. Our criminal justice system and system of civil rights can only intervene after the crime has occurred, which means it won't prevent anything. Maybe I've misread you personally, and I don't mean to put it all on you, but I think people with your position tend to vastly overstate the deterrent factor of proposed interventions.
Further, only reacting to crime and not seeking to "punish" people before a crime has occurred is exactly how our system should work. When reasoning about crime prevention, a large number of people seem to want police to intervene preemptively. Or they want to punish offenders out of proportion to actual crimes, to prevent recidivism that hasn't happened yet. This type of thinking seems to slide pretty quickly into the "pre-crime" concept of dystopian scifi. We called that stuff dystopian for a reason.
In my opinion what we should do instead to prevent crime is to promote social cohesion, in the form of preventing income and wealth disparity, funding a strong social safety net, help for drug addicts and the mentally ill, etc. People who live happier, more stable lives will have less reason to turn to crime.
(I will also note, crime is lower everywhere in America vs. a few decades ago. Violent crime peaked in the mid 1990s. So it is in some sense a misguided endeavor completely, focusing on problems that are relatively unlikely.)