Probably yes, but also these “stop crime” ads make people more afraid and make the police state worse. Especially “see it, say it, sorted” gives me the creeps
OP is pointing out. That historically police states. (IE states where law enforcement has been given to much power).
Start by creating fear among the populace. A population with an over active idea of how common crime is. Will be more willing to support governments that control them.
Human beings are really bad at understanding statistics. Generally crime is trending down in the long term. Statistically, the world is a much safer place when it comes to interpersonal violence.
These facts are harder for us to grasp than the flashy, shocking “if it bleeds, it leads” news story. People’s anecdotal knowledge of the world tends to beat out the statistics we read when we shape our perspective of the world. That leads to frequent mismatches between what people believe the world is like and what the world is actually like.
A prime example of this is the “stranger danger” public awareness campaign in the US. The effort encouraged parents to be wary of strangers that may abduct their child. The problem is that the vast and overwhelming majority of child abductions are perpetrated by family members or by individuals known to the family - not strangers.
Across the US the “anecdotal” event of being frightened by a stranger danger TV ad had a strong impact on the perceptions of many parents. A lot of those people continued to believe that the greatest risk of kidnapping came from strangers even after the (correct) contradictory statistics became widely publicized. Similarly, these “stop crime” ads can frighten people just a little bit at imagining the scenario they describe. This experience can shape perception in a large and lasting way and make people perceive the problem as being more prevalent than it is.
It’s also a part of “no broken windows” theatre. The story says that if there’s an abandoned house in the neighborhood and hooligans break one window, it must be covered up as fast as possible, otherwise, they are going to smash all the windows because they do not fear being seen anymore.
All of those traffic tickets, small fines for petty crime, etc. are designed to reinforce the idea of “we’re watching you, obey the law” because if you can get away with small crimes, you will be more likely to commit more serious ones.
Personally, I don’t like it, but a lot of petty government functionaries subscribe to this philosophy and that’s why we can’t have nice things.
But given the long history of refusal to address both violence to and harassment of women. Seems this is the one case where ensuring people pay attention and help. Can only be a good thing.
Probably yes, but also these “stop crime” ads make people more afraid and make the police state worse. Especially “see it, say it, sorted” gives me the creeps
Can you explain this for me?
OP is pointing out. That historically police states. (IE states where law enforcement has been given to much power).
Start by creating fear among the populace. A population with an over active idea of how common crime is. Will be more willing to support governments that control them.
Which is is daft when you can simply look up the stats.
The reason there are so many posters is sure to political pressure and a marginal rise in figures https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8829ked1x3o
Human beings are really bad at understanding statistics. Generally crime is trending down in the long term. Statistically, the world is a much safer place when it comes to interpersonal violence.
These facts are harder for us to grasp than the flashy, shocking “if it bleeds, it leads” news story. People’s anecdotal knowledge of the world tends to beat out the statistics we read when we shape our perspective of the world. That leads to frequent mismatches between what people believe the world is like and what the world is actually like.
A prime example of this is the “stranger danger” public awareness campaign in the US. The effort encouraged parents to be wary of strangers that may abduct their child. The problem is that the vast and overwhelming majority of child abductions are perpetrated by family members or by individuals known to the family - not strangers.
Across the US the “anecdotal” event of being frightened by a stranger danger TV ad had a strong impact on the perceptions of many parents. A lot of those people continued to believe that the greatest risk of kidnapping came from strangers even after the (correct) contradictory statistics became widely publicized. Similarly, these “stop crime” ads can frighten people just a little bit at imagining the scenario they describe. This experience can shape perception in a large and lasting way and make people perceive the problem as being more prevalent than it is.
It’s also a part of “no broken windows” theatre. The story says that if there’s an abandoned house in the neighborhood and hooligans break one window, it must be covered up as fast as possible, otherwise, they are going to smash all the windows because they do not fear being seen anymore.
All of those traffic tickets, small fines for petty crime, etc. are designed to reinforce the idea of “we’re watching you, obey the law” because if you can get away with small crimes, you will be more likely to commit more serious ones.
Personally, I don’t like it, but a lot of petty government functionaries subscribe to this philosophy and that’s why we can’t have nice things.
Agree fully with your examples.
But given the long history of refusal to address both violence to and harassment of women. Seems this is the one case where ensuring people pay attention and help. Can only be a good thing.