> 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'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.