4 ms·
What I learned from Criminology 101 in college was this: By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught. So, people, do in fact
by mbesto 6y ago
What I learned from Criminology 101 in college was this:
By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught.
So, people, do in fact rationalize "I'm definitely going to get caught and the consequences are bad, I won't do it".
So, to your point, the punishment itself is largely a deterrence. I think because a rational human being simply cannot grok the differences in long term effects. This is already essentially proven in how people behave with money - i.e. people suck at long term saving without external forces nudging them to do so.
- ixacto 6y agoThe death penalty should not be abolished because to some criminals in society the threat of force is the only thing they respect.
- jandrese 6y agoThey don't fear prison at all? It's not like the options are limited to killing them or letting them go.
- ixacto 6y agoFor some people prison is 3 meals a day and a place to sleep, paid with your tax dollars.
- ReactiveJelly 6y agoLife in prison is already a threat of force. The force is that they're forced to stay in prison.
- mrweasel 6y ago>By far, the largest factor of deterrence was the likelihood of getting caught. Does that mean it prevents people capable (mentally and morally) from committing a planned crime or is it in general? Because everything I've seen says most people who for instance attack others almost never consider the consequences.
- mbesto 6y agoI don't know for sure but the general problem is that while certainty is almost nearly more effective it's also way less enforceable, meaning, it's much more difficult to enact laws that create more certainty of punishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)#Certainty_vs._severity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)#Certaint...