4 ms·

Might as well just give people the money as long as they don't re-offend?

mruts 8y ago
Most people can’t agree on the purpose of prison. Certainly taking bad people out of society is one view, but punishment and paying a debt is another. I don’t think many people would be happy about a murderer walking free and paying him even if it ensured he wouldn’t reoffend.
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  I'm not suggesting people always get the money, I'm suggesting that where the cause seems to be poverty and bad background it should be tried to see if it works out cheaper. Murder and rape should probably have a penalty based approach, yes.
  - tasuki 8y ago
    Can we skip the "crime" part here? Perhaps just give money to people in poverty? Wouldn't it be better to prevent them from committing a crime to begin with?
AshishBora 8y ago
Bad idea. This gives an incentive to start committing crimes to get free money for life.
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  What if the crime rate overall (and cost to the tax payer) ended up being substantially reduced with this system, would you still be against it?
  - tasuki 8y ago
    Why should the crime rate end up reduced when you pay people to commit crime? AshishBora's point was that crime rate overall would increase, as there's a clear financial incentive to start committing crime. Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
    - andy_ppp 8y ago
      No, it's only going to happen for all the people who would become criminals. Would you become a criminal if I paid you $75k for life afterwards, assuming the court found you were in poverty and needed the money (probably most criminals). I for one know I absolutely would not commit crimes no matter how much money you paid me.
      - cgriswald 8y ago
        I’m struggling to see how your argument isn’t that people are born criminals. If you pay people to commit crime, you get more crime. That’s irrespective of any bizarre immunity you personally think you have to the incentives. Imagine being poor and having a child. You are such a law-abiding fellow that you are going to watch your child struggle every day and maybe go hungry some nights when you could do one simple crime to end that struggle forever and whose only negative consequence is having a black mark on an abstract “criminal record”? And you’re going to do this despite massive pressure from family, culture, any woman in your life, and the normalization of such actions? I think I could make a strong argument that in the case being discussed not committing a crime is at best foolish and at worst deeply immoral.
        andy_ppp 8y ago
        It’s never been tried paying people to not commit crime has it so both of our theories need some testing to proves who is correct. I personally think it would be very effective; it’s not as if there would be no consequences for repeat offenders or people who took the money and carried on breaking the law. I don’t think you’re thinking clearly about what I’m suggesting at all. One thing we 100% do know is that jail is not working to stop reoffending in the vast majority of cases, and as the article suggests this is at great expense to the tax payer.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  The re-offend part might matter. You're on probation, and as long as you're only on probation, you get dividends from the government.
  - tasuki 8y ago
    That motivates people to commit one and only one crime. Books get popular describing how to choose the best crime to commit, to maximize the expected value of the crime _plus_ the subsequent dividends.
slim 8y ago
I'd argue give every American $75k and watch America become great again for real
- wccrawford 8y ago
  I feel like there's a drama novel just waiting to be written there. Even if you don't mean to give every American citizen $75k in a lump sum, that kind of cash infusion would make so many things go bonkers. I'd kind of like to read that novel now.
adrianmonk 8y ago
Not sure whether to take that suggestion seriously, but it seems like it would amount to an agreement to behave a certain way in exchange for compensation. But the reason most of these people are in prison in the first place is they don't have a good track record of controlling their behavior. So this idea seems predicated on their doing something that we already have good reason to believe they won't.

Most people can’t agree on the purpose of prison. Certainly taking bad people out of society is one view, but punishment and paying a debt is another. I don’t think many people would be happy about a murderer walking free and paying him even if it ensured he wouldn’t reoffend.

andy_ppp 8y ago
I'm not suggesting people always get the money, I'm suggesting that where the cause seems to be poverty and bad background it should be tried to see if it works out cheaper. Murder and rape should probably have a penalty based approach, yes.
- tasuki 8y ago
  Can we skip the "crime" part here? Perhaps just give money to people in poverty? Wouldn't it be better to prevent them from committing a crime to begin with?

AshishBora 8y ago

Bad idea. This gives an incentive to start committing crimes to get free money for life.

andy_ppp 8y ago
What if the crime rate overall (and cost to the tax payer) ended up being substantially reduced with this system, would you still be against it?
- tasuki 8y ago
  Why should the crime rate end up reduced when you pay people to commit crime? AshishBora's point was that crime rate overall would increase, as there's a clear financial incentive to start committing crime. Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
  - andy_ppp 8y ago
    No, it's only going to happen for all the people who would become criminals. Would you become a criminal if I paid you $75k for life afterwards, assuming the court found you were in poverty and needed the money (probably most criminals). I for one know I absolutely would not commit crimes no matter how much money you paid me.
    - cgriswald 8y ago
      I’m struggling to see how your argument isn’t that people are born criminals. If you pay people to commit crime, you get more crime. That’s irrespective of any bizarre immunity you personally think you have to the incentives. Imagine being poor and having a child. You are such a law-abiding fellow that you are going to watch your child struggle every day and maybe go hungry some nights when you could do one simple crime to end that struggle forever and whose only negative consequence is having a black mark on an abstract “criminal record”? And you’re going to do this despite massive pressure from family, culture, any woman in your life, and the normalization of such actions? I think I could make a strong argument that in the case being discussed not committing a crime is at best foolish and at worst deeply immoral.
      - andy_ppp 8y ago
        It’s never been tried paying people to not commit crime has it so both of our theories need some testing to proves who is correct. I personally think it would be very effective; it’s not as if there would be no consequences for repeat offenders or people who took the money and carried on breaking the law. I don’t think you’re thinking clearly about what I’m suggesting at all. One thing we 100% do know is that jail is not working to stop reoffending in the vast majority of cases, and as the article suggests this is at great expense to the tax payer.
smileysteve 8y ago
The re-offend part might matter. You're on probation, and as long as you're only on probation, you get dividends from the government.
- tasuki 8y ago
  That motivates people to commit one and only one crime. Books get popular describing how to choose the best crime to commit, to maximize the expected value of the crime _plus_ the subsequent dividends.

slim 8y ago

I'd argue give every American $75k and watch America become great again for real

wccrawford 8y ago
I feel like there's a drama novel just waiting to be written there. Even if you don't mean to give every American citizen $75k in a lump sum, that kind of cash infusion would make so many things go bonkers. I'd kind of like to read that novel now.

adrianmonk 8y ago

Not sure whether to take that suggestion seriously, but it seems like it would amount to an agreement to behave a certain way in exchange for compensation. But the reason most of these people are in prison in the first place is they don't have a good track record of controlling their behavior. So this idea seems predicated on their doing something that we already have good reason to believe they won't.