Hacker News Reader

Comment by peter_d_sherman | Hacker News Reader

Excerpt: "And when you hang out for a while, you see how differently they respond to conflicts now. For example, they [the Latin Kings] put on one of the biggest hip hop concerts ever, and they worked with other previously antagonistic gangs on the project."

If this is true, then I nominate David Brotherton for a Nobel Prize...

Also, I found this quote interesting: "...basically, when you want to stop a behavior, the worst thing you can do is prohibit it. Social inclusion is the most productive means of social control."

Interesting...

View on HN

>Also, I found this quote interesting: "...basically, when you want to stop a behavior, the worst thing you can do is prohibit it. Social inclusion is the most productive means of social control."

So what happens when the behavior is the inherent wrong?

People want to stop gangs not because being in the gang is inherently wrong, but because of the violence and crime that normally surrounds membership in a gang. The same somewhat applies to drugs as well, as many people don't see the drug itself as being something bad as long as adults reasonably use it, but the problems drugs normally cause as the reason for banning them.

But what about actions that are bad in and of themselves. Should we socially include NAMBLA and stop prohibiting what they wish to legalize? I seriously question the wisdom of such a move.

> basically, when you want to stop a behavior, the worst thing you can do is prohibit it.

The results certainly sound encouraging.

I'm curious though how people from those communities who tried to do the "right thing" and not get involved with gangs feel about this leniency.

I'd imagine there's a tipping point where too much forgiveness and inclusion for too many criminals leads to a lack of trust in the rule of law.

Another example: Drug legalization in Portugal [1]

[1]: http://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization...

>[the Latin Kings] put on one of the biggest hip hop concerts ever

Afrika Bambaataa also used this tactic to reduce gang violence in late 70s/early 80s New York.

Makes me think of Portugal's move of legalizing drugs, so now people have medical problems, that they can get help with.

portugal did not legalize drugs, it decriminalized possession within certain limits ("ten-days supply").

It's pretty far from true legalization, but certainly better than 100% criminalized possession.

I agree, there's room for improvement, it's good some kid getting caught with a gram of weed isn't given a life changing- permanant felony.

Seems to be accepting the counter culture as part of the wider culture.

This very much makes me think of the distinction between motorcycle clubs and motorcycle gangs. The choice of word states if they are a group to be socially ostracized or a group expected to participate as part of the wider community.

Counter culture? Working a 9-5 and living in the suburbs is counter to tens of thousands of years of humanity organizing itself in tribes which compete (often violently) for resources.

It seems fairly obvious that "legalizing" these groups and incorporating them into the political process allows them to gain resources without violence.

"Social inclusion is the most productive means of social control."

Excellent quote. There's a lot of truth here. Social exclusion is at the heart of a lot of behavioural pathologies.

Can you start a behavior by prohibiting it too then?

Could we also say - now criminals kill less each other, hence there are more criminals in the streets?

And we could also say that they use their influence and legality to spread their criminal identity through the use of art (like rap, graffiti, etc).

If additions to the biggest music genre, and a massive art genre, is the negative results of doing this then they should be doing a lot more of it.

You could say the same thing about Frank Sinatra

If there's a fixed supply of "criminals", sure, but there's not. People change. In the right circumstances people who might otherwise be law-abiding commit crimes, and vice versa.

What is important, the number of criminals, or the number and nature of crimes ?

I think the goal is to reduce the later, attacking the former was just a way to try to do that.

Ecuador strat seems to work toward the second goal, just without tackling the first.

Let's see if how this goes.

What do you call someone who doesn't commit crimes any more?

I submit that "criminal" is the wrong word, certainly when your focus is public order in the present day.

Killing less or not killing at all (anymore) doesn't automatically make someone non-criminal - there are lots of other types of crimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com