3 ms·

The evidence is extremely weak that threat of punishment actually successfully deters crimes of opportunity: https://undark.org/2016/05/16/deterrence-punishment

The evidence is extremely weak that threat of punishment actually successfully deters crimes of opportunity: https://undark.org/2016/05/16/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduce-crime/ https://undark.org/2016/05/16/deterrence-punishments-dont-re... Some premeditated crimes (e.g. first-degree murder, bribery) can be deterred by threat of punishment, but when people are making the snap-decision to commit a crime of opportunity, they aren't carefully weighing the risk vs reward.

apta 7y ago
Studies like this always seem to be confined to Western societies (and particularly the US). Other societies seem to be doing just fine with harsh punishments like the death penalty. There are other factors at play here, but having harsh punishments that are actually applied is one factor in the system. In other countries, serial rapists would be executed for instance. I'm not sure that's the case in the US.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Not that I'm recommending we go this route, but Singapore will literally beat you with a big stick, likely permanently handicapping you, for offenses as small as chewing gum. They have remarkably low crime.
  - chickenfries 7y ago
    Chewing gum is a fine. There’s a lot to be said about caning in Singapore but you’re not going to be caned for chewing gum.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  Among developed countries, the US has one of the harshest "justice" systems. It still has death sentences and the dubious record of an incarceration rate higher than any other country.
  - apta 7y ago
    It's about how correctly applied those punishments are. Just because it has the death penalty and high incarceration rates doesn't mean that they're being used correctly. For instance, does a serial rapist or serial child molester get the death penalty? In other countries he would. Why do people who were convicted with 100% certainty get put on death row for very long periods of time? People like public shooters and so on. It's a flawed application of the system in the US.
perl4ever 7y ago
A reasonable way to look at risk is the severity of the outcome multiplied by the probability it will occur. Your link seems to endorse that that kind of risk acts as a deterrent when sufficiently large. If your point is that people (at least those who aren't scientists or statisticians) round small probabilities to zero, then I agree, and it's something that I think people need to be more aware of when considering deterrence or other behavior. However, I don't think you or the article made this point clearly. The article would be so much shorter and simpler if it was condensed down to that one observation. It's quite reasonable to say that punishment only has an effect when it is clearly linked to an action, but that sounds like a completely different message than saying punishment doesn't work (implicitly assuming it almost never occurs).

apta 7y ago

Studies like this always seem to be confined to Western societies (and particularly the US). Other societies seem to be doing just fine with harsh punishments like the death penalty. There are other factors at play here, but having harsh punishments that are actually applied is one factor in the system. In other countries, serial rapists would be executed for instance. I'm not sure that's the case in the US.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Not that I'm recommending we go this route, but Singapore will literally beat you with a big stick, likely permanently handicapping you, for offenses as small as chewing gum. They have remarkably low crime.
- chickenfries 7y ago
  Chewing gum is a fine. There’s a lot to be said about caning in Singapore but you’re not going to be caned for chewing gum.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Among developed countries, the US has one of the harshest "justice" systems. It still has death sentences and the dubious record of an incarceration rate higher than any other country.
- apta 7y ago
  It's about how correctly applied those punishments are. Just because it has the death penalty and high incarceration rates doesn't mean that they're being used correctly. For instance, does a serial rapist or serial child molester get the death penalty? In other countries he would. Why do people who were convicted with 100% certainty get put on death row for very long periods of time? People like public shooters and so on. It's a flawed application of the system in the US.

perl4ever 7y ago

A reasonable way to look at risk is the severity of the outcome multiplied by the probability it will occur. Your link seems to endorse that that kind of risk acts as a deterrent when sufficiently large. If your point is that people (at least those who aren't scientists or statisticians) round small probabilities to zero, then I agree, and it's something that I think people need to be more aware of when considering deterrence or other behavior. However, I don't think you or the article made this point clearly. The article would be so much shorter and simpler if it was condensed down to that one observation. It's quite reasonable to say that punishment only has an effect when it is clearly linked to an action, but that sounds like a completely different message than saying punishment doesn't work (implicitly assuming it almost never occurs).