7 ms·

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.
        cgriswald 8y ago
        > It’s never been tried paying people to not commit crime... Your suggestion was to pay convicted criminals not to repeat offend. That is not quite the same thing. > ... 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. There would be only positive consequences for first time offenders so people who might not otherwise commit a crime would be highly incentivized to do so.
        andy_ppp 8y ago
        You're assuming the worst in people; let's give a counter example - in Portugal where they have decriminalised drugs, according to your theory not punishing people leads to worse outcomes, but decriminalisation reduced the country's drug problems. Just because you believe one way of thinking about things does not mean that it will automatically be true. These things need to be tested to see if they help and I'm happy to be wrong.
        cgriswald 8y ago
        > You're assuming the worst in people No. I'm using a pretty basic economic principle to show why your idea is a terrible one. People respond to incentives. If you incentivize crime, you get crime. > let's give a counter example - in Portugal where they have decriminalised drugs Terrible example. Get back to me when Portugal pays people the first time they do drugs. > These things need to be tested to see if they help No, they don't. You are under the illusion that all hypotheses are equal. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the idea that incentivizing behaviors leads to more of those behaviors. The irony is your argument doesn't work without this principle. You are arguing that by incentivizing going on the straight-and-narrow, there will be a reduction in recidivism. I agree! That would work! The flipside is that you're also incentivizing people to commit their first crime. You say that's not true. This leads to a contradiction in your argument. Therefore your argument is invalid. QED. > ...and I'm happy to be wrong. You're not happy, though. You keep coming back to this ridiculous idea, even though it is obviously wrong on its face.
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.

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.
      - cgriswald 8y ago
        > It’s never been tried paying people to not commit crime... Your suggestion was to pay convicted criminals not to repeat offend. That is not quite the same thing. > ... 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. There would be only positive consequences for first time offenders so people who might not otherwise commit a crime would be highly incentivized to do so.
        andy_ppp 8y ago
        You're assuming the worst in people; let's give a counter example - in Portugal where they have decriminalised drugs, according to your theory not punishing people leads to worse outcomes, but decriminalisation reduced the country's drug problems. Just because you believe one way of thinking about things does not mean that it will automatically be true. These things need to be tested to see if they help and I'm happy to be wrong.
        cgriswald 8y ago
        > You're assuming the worst in people No. I'm using a pretty basic economic principle to show why your idea is a terrible one. People respond to incentives. If you incentivize crime, you get crime. > let's give a counter example - in Portugal where they have decriminalised drugs Terrible example. Get back to me when Portugal pays people the first time they do drugs. > These things need to be tested to see if they help No, they don't. You are under the illusion that all hypotheses are equal. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the idea that incentivizing behaviors leads to more of those behaviors. The irony is your argument doesn't work without this principle. You are arguing that by incentivizing going on the straight-and-narrow, there will be a reduction in recidivism. I agree! That would work! The flipside is that you're also incentivizing people to commit their first crime. You say that's not true. This leads to a contradiction in your argument. Therefore your argument is invalid. QED. > ...and I'm happy to be wrong. You're not happy, though. You keep coming back to this ridiculous idea, even though it is obviously wrong on its face.

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.