- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,435
- Reaction score
- 20,857
I don't think crime has decreased, and you are missing a piece of that puzzle- the community used to enforce the law on its own. A crowd assembled in any American town could and often did tar and feather, or lynch, perpetrators. Any watcher a witness, any group of citizens a law enforcement body. More effective (and messy) than modern policing.
I didn't say crime decreased. I said our ability to catch criminals increased. I didn't miss community enforcement either. I specifically stated that the ability to identify the criminal was far more difficult in the past. So hedonism went unpunished far more often.
A crowd could certainly do all sorts of things but that doesn't mean the crowd actually determined that it was being applied to the right person. Because absent witnesses, the crowd is just guessing.
And hedonism that isn't seen doesn't get punished at all. Extramarital affairs in the woods aren't seen by anyone. Killing a man along the route between villages aren't seen by anyone. Beating your spouse wasn't a crime. Violence was a far more accepted response to social insults.
We criminalize more things than before. We have more ability to identify criminals than before. You seem to be applying a version of the past that doesn't take into account just how little "crowds" had access to when identifying criminals, let alone punishing them. Also you might be mischaracterizing social norms regarding violence, both in and outside of the home.