4 ms·

Actual evidence consistently shows that mild penalties with a high probability of enforcement are most effective at maximizing compliance. If you're going to t

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."
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I get what you are saying about tipping points, but in your example, but i would fault a bad law, not the enforcement. If the speed limits are universally hated, the community should raise them. Instead they chose to ignore and arbitrarily enforce them, most likely against minorities and the poor. Why keep undesireable laws on the book? The public should want the law enforced.

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."
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I get what you are saying about tipping points, but in your example, but i would fault a bad law, not the enforcement. If the speed limits are universally hated, the community should raise them. Instead they chose to ignore and arbitrarily enforce them, most likely against minorities and the poor. Why keep undesireable laws on the book? The public should want the law enforced.