4 ms·

It's a sensible belief, I have it too. It's not backed by the evidence, though. Harsher sentences do not decrease crime rates.

tzs 6y ago
They don't seem to decrease crime rates in others, but how about crime rates for the people actually sentenced? Sentencing Alice to 20 years for some crime might not discourage Bob from doing the same crime, but it is at least going to stop Alice from doing that crime again for the next 20 years (assuming we are talking about a crime that Alice cannot do in prison).
- f38zf5vdt 6y ago
  It's very difficult to calculate the sum of externalities introduced by long-term imprisonment. Crimes will be reduced at the public level as could _potentially_ be engaged in by the convicted, however: 1) The criminal is free to commit crimes against others in prison, which may further criminality in those individuals when they are released. 2) There is a burden on families, especially children of those incarcerated. The fostering system seems to result in a lot of future criminals. 3) The economic cost of a 20 year incarceration is probably about $50-100k per annum per prisoner in most first world countries. It's possible that this money being spent on programs to enable to impoverished to escape poverty or investment into programs or drugs to treat criminals would result in greater net reductions in crime to the public as compared to incarcerating a single individual.
- jjk166 6y ago
  Well by that logic, if you pre-emptively lock up both alice and bob you can avoid crime altogether. But we don't lock people up because we suspect they will commit a crime, we lock them up as a punishment for the crimes we can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit.
- hnick 6y ago
  A shorter sentence may be more effective if the subject is rehabilitated and able to integrate back into society. Coming back after 20 or 30 years would make it very hard to integrate into being a contributing member. We'd have to look at the whole picture. And, of course, the death penalty makes it impossible for them to offend again if that is the main argument. Though perhaps they wouldn't have anyway.

tzs 6y ago

They don't seem to decrease crime rates in others, but how about crime rates for the people actually sentenced? Sentencing Alice to 20 years for some crime might not discourage Bob from doing the same crime, but it is at least going to stop Alice from doing that crime again for the next 20 years (assuming we are talking about a crime that Alice cannot do in prison).

f38zf5vdt 6y ago
It's very difficult to calculate the sum of externalities introduced by long-term imprisonment. Crimes will be reduced at the public level as could _potentially_ be engaged in by the convicted, however: 1) The criminal is free to commit crimes against others in prison, which may further criminality in those individuals when they are released. 2) There is a burden on families, especially children of those incarcerated. The fostering system seems to result in a lot of future criminals. 3) The economic cost of a 20 year incarceration is probably about $50-100k per annum per prisoner in most first world countries. It's possible that this money being spent on programs to enable to impoverished to escape poverty or investment into programs or drugs to treat criminals would result in greater net reductions in crime to the public as compared to incarcerating a single individual.
jjk166 6y ago
Well by that logic, if you pre-emptively lock up both alice and bob you can avoid crime altogether. But we don't lock people up because we suspect they will commit a crime, we lock them up as a punishment for the crimes we can show beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit.
hnick 6y ago
A shorter sentence may be more effective if the subject is rehabilitated and able to integrate back into society. Coming back after 20 or 30 years would make it very hard to integrate into being a contributing member. We'd have to look at the whole picture. And, of course, the death penalty makes it impossible for them to offend again if that is the main argument. Though perhaps they wouldn't have anyway.