4 ms·

I don't know enough to take a position on this issue one way or another, but I think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could se

I don't know enough to take a position on this issue one way or another, but I think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could serve as a deterrent that results in enough increased fare revenue to offset the cost.

jameskilton 7y ago
This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions And to a lesser extent, this ignores the subset of circumstances where people forget to pay, actually do pay but the payment gets lost, or can't afford to pay but need to get places. This is why 3-strike rules are abject failures (life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza?). Crime and punishment are enormously complicated and the "obvious" solutions almost never actually work.
- Tsubasachan 7y ago
  Neither of those points is an excuse for breaking the law unless you're mentally ill. In which case you should still be locked up but this time in a mental institution. Just pay for your ticket or walk.
  - dbspin 7y ago
    You're confusing a moral judgement rooted in emotional conceptions of 'justice' (what one 'should' do) with a logical response to a systematic problem (how to most effectively ameliorate antisocial behaviour). Which is, in a nutshell, exactly why retributive policing and the carceral state have failed spectacularly.
- unqueued 7y ago
  If we just stopped enforcing the laws, the damage to our society would be incalculable. Is it worth it to prosecute petty thefts for less than $100? If not, then we are giving the green light to that kind of crime. What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the law? > This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions I lived in New York City, and saw the people who tried that in Bushwick. I actually agree that there are sadly many adults who completely dysfunctional. But that does not mean that we should just abandon our laws. Is it not a much bigger problem that we have people who simply can not help but break the law?
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I don't think GP is saying we shouldn't enforce laws that don't make sense economically. Rather, if all it takes to follow the law is pay $2.75, and people break it over 200,000 times per day, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether the law and consequences are effective?
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    > What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the law? Small businesses exist even in places with no laws. Not saying it is a good idea to not have laws, or not enforce them, but it isn't like EVERYTHING ceases to work when laws aren't enforced. I also don't think the effect is incalculable. We have lots of examples of places where the government collapses and there is no longer any enforcement of the law. We could certainly research the effect his has on the economy. I am in no way arguing that we should abandon laws or stop enforcing petty crime, just saying it isn't quite that simple.
    - jplayer01 7y ago
      > Small businesses exist even in places with no laws Only because other power structures emerge with their own rules. I think I’ll take laws over "lawlessness".
delecti 7y ago
It's generally the case that a significant chance of being caught is a much bigger deterrent than a significant punishment if you are caught. https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx
- Frqy3 7y ago
  We are moving towards a state where technology will allow us to punish every infraction every time, automatically and at low marginal processing cost. I expect that rebalancing the punishments to match the new likelihood of getting caught will lag by at least 5-10 years, causing greater social problems in the interim.
crooked-v 7y ago
> I think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could serve as a deterrent that results in enough increased fare revenue to offset the cost Rational deterrence theory and associated studies generally hold that the scale of deterrence means very little if it isn't reliably put into use. That is to say, picking out a few unlucky rule violators and inflicting tremendous punishments on them has very little effect, while reliably inflicting minor punishments on most people who violate the rules has a much more noticeable effect on compliance.
dls2016 7y ago
Ok, now make the same argument for those guilty of wage theft and see how much push back you get. (Estimates suggest wage theft and shoplifting both cost the US economy ~$40 billion/year. But one of these crimes results in virtually zero jail time.) What is behind the US love affair with jail? It's perverse.

jameskilton 7y ago

This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions And to a lesser extent, this ignores the subset of circumstances where people forget to pay, actually do pay but the payment gets lost, or can't afford to pay but need to get places. This is why 3-strike rules are abject failures (life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza?). Crime and punishment are enormously complicated and the "obvious" solutions almost never actually work.

Tsubasachan 7y ago
Neither of those points is an excuse for breaking the law unless you're mentally ill. In which case you should still be locked up but this time in a mental institution. Just pay for your ticket or walk.
- dbspin 7y ago
  You're confusing a moral judgement rooted in emotional conceptions of 'justice' (what one 'should' do) with a logical response to a systematic problem (how to most effectively ameliorate antisocial behaviour). Which is, in a nutshell, exactly why retributive policing and the carceral state have failed spectacularly.
unqueued 7y ago
If we just stopped enforcing the laws, the damage to our society would be incalculable. Is it worth it to prosecute petty thefts for less than $100? If not, then we are giving the green light to that kind of crime. What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the law? > This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions I lived in New York City, and saw the people who tried that in Bushwick. I actually agree that there are sadly many adults who completely dysfunctional. But that does not mean that we should just abandon our laws. Is it not a much bigger problem that we have people who simply can not help but break the law?
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I don't think GP is saying we shouldn't enforce laws that don't make sense economically. Rather, if all it takes to follow the law is pay $2.75, and people break it over 200,000 times per day, maybe it's time to reevaluate whether the law and consequences are effective?
- cortesoft 7y ago
  > What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the law? Small businesses exist even in places with no laws. Not saying it is a good idea to not have laws, or not enforce them, but it isn't like EVERYTHING ceases to work when laws aren't enforced. I also don't think the effect is incalculable. We have lots of examples of places where the government collapses and there is no longer any enforcement of the law. We could certainly research the effect his has on the economy. I am in no way arguing that we should abandon laws or stop enforcing petty crime, just saying it isn't quite that simple.
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    > Small businesses exist even in places with no laws Only because other power structures emerge with their own rules. I think I’ll take laws over "lawlessness".

delecti 7y ago

It's generally the case that a significant chance of being caught is a much bigger deterrent than a significant punishment if you are caught. https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

Frqy3 7y ago
We are moving towards a state where technology will allow us to punish every infraction every time, automatically and at low marginal processing cost. I expect that rebalancing the punishments to match the new likelihood of getting caught will lag by at least 5-10 years, causing greater social problems in the interim.

crooked-v 7y ago

> I think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could serve as a deterrent that results in enough increased fare revenue to offset the cost Rational deterrence theory and associated studies generally hold that the scale of deterrence means very little if it isn't reliably put into use. That is to say, picking out a few unlucky rule violators and inflicting tremendous punishments on them has very little effect, while reliably inflicting minor punishments on most people who violate the rules has a much more noticeable effect on compliance.

dls2016 7y ago

Ok, now make the same argument for those guilty of wage theft and see how much push back you get. (Estimates suggest wage theft and shoplifting both cost the US economy ~$40 billion/year. But one of these crimes results in virtually zero jail time.) What is behind the US love affair with jail? It's perverse.