It's not true in Brooklyn. I've left all kinds of things visible in a car and not had a single break in in 15 years. It's easy to make assumptions but from an outsiders perspective SF feels out of control at this point.
It's called "law enforcement". If you try to pull off a bunch of smash&grabs in Bandra or Colaba the cops will beat you with lathis. Law enforcement is far from uniform - many neighborhoods (e.g. Baiganwadi) don't have much of it. But no one parks their car in Baiganwadi.
What seems to make SF pretty unique is that even in the wealthy areas it lacks effective law enforcement.
Also, poverty in Mumbai isn't quite the same as poverty in the rest of India. Significant portions of Mumbai approach US-"poor" levels of income (about $15-20k/year, PPP adjusted) which is considered quite wealthy over here.
> It's called "law enforcement". If you try to pull off a bunch of smash&grabs in Bandra or Colaba the cops will beat you with lathis.
Where I live thieves are often beaten to death. And the rate of theft is still high. I could point you to some studies about punishment not being an effective crime deterrent, but not sure it would change your mind. It's a complicated problem and law enforcement is a band-aid at best.
Do you think crime would not increase if punishment were reduced?
Fundamentally I think law enforcement is just one piece of the puzzle. Intrinsic factors (culture, biology, economics, psychology) also play a major role - all else held equal, the US is likely to be more violent than India (important exception being sexual violence). But law enforcement does matter - how else to explain how clean little India is in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur?
