Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're confusing "sexual abuse" with abduction. While there is overlap, we're talking about two different crimes.

No one is claiming that no one should worry about abductions. But investing significant resources here CAUSES problems because of the opportunity cost -- greater amounts of good could be done by directing the resources to addressing greater risks.

That's the big problem with the "if it saves just one child" thing. There's a finite amount of resources available, so we must prioritize and spend it on the places that will do the most good. Child abductions and Amber Alerts make good news copy, but addressing the more mundane dangers will give a better bang-for-the-buck, and save more people.



I'm not confusing the two. Part of my point was sexual abuse can escalate into more serous abductions. By acting as a deterrent, it may have an effect far greater than the 27 children saved would imply. As evidence in countries without such strict systems, abduction, or at least sex slavery, can run rampant.

My argument, more generally, is that the amber may be a good bang for the buck. I am not against triage. But the very issue being critized, the media attention and cognitive stickiness of child abduction stories, are valuable in that they deter offenses, and that they raise awareness.


You may not be "confusing" the two - because you're doing it consciously - but you're conflating them. From what I know, most sexual abuse is committed by friends and family, not strangers. The AMBER alerts seemed to be targeted at abductions by strangers. Put another way, AMBER alerts are targeted at the minority of sexual abuses, not the majority.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: