[odie5533]

We spend $80 billion a year on incarceration in the US, and have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Your plan increases both. Do you honestly think that if we spend $160 billion or $240 billion a year and double or triple our incarcerated population that we'd solve crime?

Look at places and countries with low crime. They don't have the most Flock cameras, the most prisoners, or the most powerful surveillance evidence because while those may solve a crime, they don't solve crime as a whole.

[polski-g]

I was at work the other day and we were talking about my mouse problem in my basement. My coworker asked how many mouse traps I had.

I said 74.

74?! That's way to many mouse traps. No one would ever need that many mouse traps.

But sir, I haven't told you how many mice I have.

The number of incarcerated individuals is not a relevant statistic if you're also not including the number of criminals there are.

[impendia]

Are they working?

If your 74 traps solve your problem and in a month you have no more mice, then congratulations.

But it sounds like rather than buying more and more mouse traps, you should find and fix the underlying cause.

[sagarm]

But why is criminality higher in the US?

[odie5533]

Iceland is one of the most peaceful countries in the world (murder rate 0.54), 36 incarcerations per 100k, police don't carry guns, and it's not known for its widespread mass surveillance system.

Portugal is one of the most peaceful in the world (murder rate 0.7), 118 incarcerations per 100k, and doesn't have license plate readers or mass surveillance.

USA murder rate is 6.3, 541 incarcerations per 100k, extremely high recidivism, and an amazing array of surveillance systems.

Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. Guess they should have bought Flock cameras instead?

[defrost]

> Can you name such a place with low crime, low incarceration rate, low surveillance, and importantly, low black population?

Andorra and Finland both meet your four criteria.