3 ms·

I don't think the argument here is against jail time. Just that the reasoning it will work as a deterrent is flawed. Unfortunately, we/I don't have a good answ

I don't think the argument here is against jail time. Just that the reasoning it will work as a deterrent is flawed. Unfortunately, we/I don't have a good answer to your question what to use as a deterrent. The problem is a) people do not act rationally in a universal way b) people are bad with statistics c) arrest precision (Pr[you get arrested|you commit a crime] is not that great. (c) is subjective so let us forget about it. If the criminal was rational then they would think as follows: Pr[caught]Cost-Pr[not caught]Pr[succeed|not caught]payout >0 => commit crime. Humans are pretty bad at underestimating probability of events against them and overestimate their chance of success (people buy lottery tickets for instance). If a criminal is irrational, deterrents will not really work by definition -- you might be able to make due in a per case basis. You can view this as a different version of lottery ticket. No matter the risk of wasting your money, people are going to keep buying them. It really baffles me too. P.S. Consider now an extreme version tried in the past -- you commit even a simple crime, you are executed. First, this is a waste of resources (you could still use these individuals). In any system of law, yet in particular in a common law system, where the weight of precedence and law interpretation is much greater, every single one of us has almost surely committed a crime by some interpretation, obscure law etc. Second, as a criminal at that point you are going to escalate. The damage a single individual can cause to society on average has increased dramatically over time. Do not think about gun ownership. A man can just run over a busy intersection in their attempt to escape. To give some weight to my words, here is a personal story. My car was hit by an individual in a car a couple of years back on my way home. The driver drove the wrong way on a one way street, panicked and crushed into me. Instead of pulling over the they attempted to escape. In the process, pedestrians had to jump for their lives, while another car was hit also. That person endangered the lives of several people, damaged one more car, to avoid a DUI (my opinion from their erratic behavior and appearance). So only by luck, a possible DUI/crash did not upgrade to mass murder.

toss1 8y ago
Yes, people are not strictly rational, and I generally consider a lottery an innumeracy tax. The ideal deterrence, based on psychological studies, is small penalties reliably and immediately handed out, but the only way to implement that is a massive surveillance society and penalties without the delay of trials. This could work with speeding, instead of being an infraction, would just be taxed, maybe $0.01 per [mph over the limit] per mile. So I could go 100mph in a 65 zone for $0.35, but it'll add up real fast, and cruising at 79 in a 65 for your 20 mile commute would cost .14202=$5.60/day or $1400 per year. Actually higher penalties than now, since most people wouldn't get caught even once per year, and a 79mph ticket might be $200 in comparison. So it'd provide a solid deterrence. Yet, prison does still serve purposes. First, while people rarely calculate the exact rates of [getting caught] and [getting convicted] and then calculating the odds vs the payoff, the general concept of wanting to avoid the criminal justice system is enough that many people act to avoid it. So, it's a general. nonspecific deterrence, and it needs people getting imprisoned to maintain that. Perhaps more importantly, it does a very specific type of deterrence. For the sample of people who have been convicted of a crime, it ensures that they won't be out and available to do it again while imprisoned, and will have paid disproportionately for their previous venture. So, this select group who have already demonstrated probability =1 for this crime, will be strongly deterred. for that reason alone, I'd vote for keeping this perp off the streets for half a decade. edit: error, clarity

toss1 8y ago

Yes, people are not strictly rational, and I generally consider a lottery an innumeracy tax. The ideal deterrence, based on psychological studies, is small penalties reliably and immediately handed out, but the only way to implement that is a massive surveillance society and penalties without the delay of trials. This could work with speeding, instead of being an infraction, would just be taxed, maybe $0.01 per [mph over the limit] per mile. So I could go 100mph in a 65 zone for $0.35, but it'll add up real fast, and cruising at 79 in a 65 for your 20 mile commute would cost .14202=$5.60/day or $1400 per year. Actually higher penalties than now, since most people wouldn't get caught even once per year, and a 79mph ticket might be $200 in comparison. So it'd provide a solid deterrence. Yet, prison does still serve purposes. First, while people rarely calculate the exact rates of [getting caught] and [getting convicted] and then calculating the odds vs the payoff, the general concept of wanting to avoid the criminal justice system is enough that many people act to avoid it. So, it's a general. nonspecific deterrence, and it needs people getting imprisoned to maintain that. Perhaps more importantly, it does a very specific type of deterrence. For the sample of people who have been convicted of a crime, it ensures that they won't be out and available to do it again while imprisoned, and will have paid disproportionately for their previous venture. So, this select group who have already demonstrated probability =1 for this crime, will be strongly deterred. for that reason alone, I'd vote for keeping this perp off the streets for half a decade. edit: error, clarity