5 ms·

The fact that some people commit crimes out of desperation isn’t a very good argument for removing disincentives to commit crimes. You don’t lock your door at n

by baddox 7y ago

The fact that some people commit crimes out of desperation isn’t a very good argument for removing disincentives to commit crimes. You don’t lock your door at night because you think someone might break in for fun and you want to deprive them of that fun. You lock your door to protect your family and your belongings. The question of moral culpability might be relevant when discussing legal punishments, rehabilitation, social welfare, etc. but it really isn’t relevant to what basic measures one can take to protect their home. To use an extreme example, someone could be forced under duress to break into your home. They clearly wouldn’t be morally culpable, but that simply isn’t relevant. You still lock your doors.

anarchodev 7y ago
Sure, I'm not telling anyone not to lock their car doors. You don't have to make it as easy as possible for someone to steal your belongings in order to understand that some measures will do more harm than good. There are solutions which aren't part of either extreme.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  A friend of mine had his car broken into something like 4 or 5 times in 6 months in an underground gated parking area at his apartment. Each time they would break the side window to get inside the car. They would do this with half a dozen cars at a time. It wasn't a particularly bad part of town, but the entrance to the parking area wasn't in a high traffic area and there was some green space nearby making it pretty easy for people to sneak into the parking area. He eventually just stopped leaving anything at all in his car, rolling down the windows, and leaving it unlocked. As soon as he did that, the thieves would simply move onto the next vehicle without damaging his. Once most people started leaving their windows rolled down, the thieves stopped visiting to move onto more rewarding victims... So sometimes the solution is to not lock your car doors. :(
Enginerrrd 7y ago
Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. If you're going to turn up the dial on the enforcement probability, you absolutely should turn down the dial on the punishment, else you encourage a situation with perverse incentives and an undue burden on society greater than the one you are trying to solve.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  >Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. I find it hard to believe that mild penalties are more effective deterent than high penalties and high enforcement. That said, the punishment should still fit the crime
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    High penalties can incentivize to commit further crimes, at least. An extreme example might be capital punishment for robbery, which I'd expect (but haven't seen statistics, or don't remember) would increase the rate of murder committed during robberies.
    - Enginerrrd 7y ago
      Yes! A good example is three-strikes laws, where a misdemeanor can get you a life sentence, so some criminals are highly incentivized to aggressively fight an additional arrest, with very little marginal incentive not to commit murder to do so. From a 2015 study[1]: "Three-strikes laws were associated with a 33% increase in the risk of fatal assaults on LEOs." [1]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274
  - livueta 7y ago
    Maybe because high penalties + high enforcement == rebellion? A traffic-related anecdote: the geograplically-isolated suburb I live in had a metric fuckton of speed traps about twenty years ago - like, an absurd quantity. You had cops staking out basically everywhere and giving massive tickets for the slightest infractions. Did this actually make people stop speeding? No way. It got enough people pissed enough that the entire municipal government was voted out on a program of ending the absurd overenforcement of traffic laws. Now, it also didn't help that there was a widespread perception that the city government was using this to line its coffers, but I think the major takeaway is that citizens will only put up with so much if infractions that nobody really sees as serious are consistently, harshly punished. Eventually, you're going to get a backlash. Of course, this calculus would probably be different if what was being punished wasn't crimes largely committed by a politically active upper middle class, but I think the example is instructive for many cases. I guess prohibition also kinda falls into this category, so I should refine my original statement to "in cases of high enforcement/high penalties where most people don't see the big deal, those regimes will not last long via an accelerative mechanism."

by baddox 7y ago

anarchodev 7y ago

Sure, I'm not telling anyone not to lock their car doors. You don't have to make it as easy as possible for someone to steal your belongings in order to understand that some measures will do more harm than good. There are solutions which aren't part of either extreme.

allannienhuis 7y ago
A friend of mine had his car broken into something like 4 or 5 times in 6 months in an underground gated parking area at his apartment. Each time they would break the side window to get inside the car. They would do this with half a dozen cars at a time. It wasn't a particularly bad part of town, but the entrance to the parking area wasn't in a high traffic area and there was some green space nearby making it pretty easy for people to sneak into the parking area. He eventually just stopped leaving anything at all in his car, rolling down the windows, and leaving it unlocked. As soon as he did that, the thieves would simply move onto the next vehicle without damaging his. Once most people started leaving their windows rolled down, the thieves stopped visiting to move onto more rewarding victims... So sometimes the solution is to not lock your car doors. :(

Enginerrrd 7y ago

Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. If you're going to turn up the dial on the enforcement probability, you absolutely should turn down the dial on the punishment, else you encourage a situation with perverse incentives and an undue burden on society greater than the one you are trying to solve.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
>Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. I find it hard to believe that mild penalties are more effective deterent than high penalties and high enforcement. That said, the punishment should still fit the crime
- randallsquared 7y ago
  High penalties can incentivize to commit further crimes, at least. An extreme example might be capital punishment for robbery, which I'd expect (but haven't seen statistics, or don't remember) would increase the rate of murder committed during robberies.
  - Enginerrrd 7y ago
    Yes! A good example is three-strikes laws, where a misdemeanor can get you a life sentence, so some criminals are highly incentivized to aggressively fight an additional arrest, with very little marginal incentive not to commit murder to do so. From a 2015 study[1]: "Three-strikes laws were associated with a 33% increase in the risk of fatal assaults on LEOs." [1]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/4/274
- livueta 7y ago
  Maybe because high penalties + high enforcement == rebellion? A traffic-related anecdote: the geograplically-isolated suburb I live in had a metric fuckton of speed traps about twenty years ago - like, an absurd quantity. You had cops staking out basically everywhere and giving massive tickets for the slightest infractions. Did this actually make people stop speeding? No way. It got enough people pissed enough that the entire municipal government was voted out on a program of ending the absurd overenforcement of traffic laws. Now, it also didn't help that there was a widespread perception that the city government was using this to line its coffers, but I think the major takeaway is that citizens will only put up with so much if infractions that nobody really sees as serious are consistently, harshly punished. Eventually, you're going to get a backlash. Of course, this calculus would probably be different if what was being punished wasn't crimes largely committed by a politically active upper middle class, but I think the example is instructive for many cases. I guess prohibition also kinda falls into this category, so I should refine my original statement to "in cases of high enforcement/high penalties where most people don't see the big deal, those regimes will not last long via an accelerative mechanism."