5 ms·

If you reduce the chance of going to jail for "non-violent" crimes such as burglary, you will get more such crimes, because burglars are neither deterred nor in

If you reduce the chance of going to jail for "non-violent" crimes such as burglary, you will get more such crimes, because burglars are neither deterred nor incarcerated.

Bostonian 7y ago
For some reason my comment was downvoted. Here is a quote from the end of the article showing that burglars are not being punished severely enough to deter them: When Martin recalled the June break-in at the Pine Tar Grill, what sticks in his mind wasn’t losing the computers or bobbleheads. Instead, it was a conversation he had with a police officer who viewed the footage of the break-in, who told him that he recognized the person in the video and that he had been arrested multiple times, Martin said. “As a business owner,” Martin said, “that’s just really hard to hear.”
- taobility 7y ago
  Liberal doesn't agree with you so they downvoted :)
thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
I really don't know why this was down voted. This is absolutely correct. With less dis-incentive for crime, crime will only go up.
- Traster 7y ago
  It's downvoted because it's a horrible simplification of a very complex problem and it isn't supported by evidence. If it were true then we would see a very clear correlation in the data between sentencing policy and crime rates, but we basically don't. In fact as sentencing laws in almost all developed countries have reduced, we've seen reductions in crime.
jeffrom 7y ago
data doesn't really bear out the effectiveness of broken windows theory
journalctl 7y ago
Too bad that’s incorrect. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...
- tropo 7y ago
  We shouldn't mix up "chance of going to jail" with "severity of punishment". Potential criminals easily dismiss severe punishment, but they don't dismiss near-certain punishment. Quick and reliable punishment is highly effective. Increasing the severity is weakly effective. There is also the simple fact that people in custody are physically separated from potential victims. This very obviously works.

If you reduce the chance of going to jail for "non-violent" crimes such as burglary, you will get more such crimes, because burglars are neither deterred nor incarcerated.

Bostonian 7y ago

For some reason my comment was downvoted. Here is a quote from the end of the article showing that burglars are not being punished severely enough to deter them: When Martin recalled the June break-in at the Pine Tar Grill, what sticks in his mind wasn’t losing the computers or bobbleheads. Instead, it was a conversation he had with a police officer who viewed the footage of the break-in, who told him that he recognized the person in the video and that he had been arrested multiple times, Martin said. “As a business owner,” Martin said, “that’s just really hard to hear.”

taobility 7y ago
Liberal doesn't agree with you so they downvoted :)

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

I really don't know why this was down voted. This is absolutely correct. With less dis-incentive for crime, crime will only go up.

Traster 7y ago
It's downvoted because it's a horrible simplification of a very complex problem and it isn't supported by evidence. If it were true then we would see a very clear correlation in the data between sentencing policy and crime rates, but we basically don't. In fact as sentencing laws in almost all developed countries have reduced, we've seen reductions in crime.

jeffrom 7y ago

data doesn't really bear out the effectiveness of broken windows theory

journalctl 7y ago

Too bad that’s incorrect. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...

tropo 7y ago
We shouldn't mix up "chance of going to jail" with "severity of punishment". Potential criminals easily dismiss severe punishment, but they don't dismiss near-certain punishment. Quick and reliable punishment is highly effective. Increasing the severity is weakly effective. There is also the simple fact that people in custody are physically separated from potential victims. This very obviously works.