4 ms·

It's almost as though the framing of "tougher" vs "softer" is a ridiculous over-simplification of the matter. We should be tougher on violent crime and softer

by darawk 5y ago

It's almost as though the framing of "tougher" vs "softer" is a ridiculous over-simplification of the matter. We should be tougher on violent crime and softer on non-violent crime. EDIT: I want to amend this to say that even the increase in nuance that I just suggested is probably not nuanced enough. Some kinds of violent crime we are probably too harsh on, and some kinds of non-violent crime (e.g. serious white collar financial crime, or certain types of safety/environmental violations at scale) we could probably stand to be a bit harsher on.

scarmig 5y ago
Severity of punishment isn't the best way to disincentivize crime. If you have two justice regimes, one where 50% is caught and punished and the other where 25% is but punishment is twice as harsh, the former will be far more effective at decreasing crime. (Mostly) abolish prisons, and put tons of police officers into the community.
- darawk 5y ago
  You're absolutely right. But deterrence isn't the only issue of importance. We do want to select punishments that deter. But we also simply want to separate incorrigible offenders from society. Every year a murderer is locked up is a year they aren't killing anyone (except maybe other prisoners). I agree that increasing the probability of getting caught is good too, though.
bart_spoon 5y ago
Over half of all individuals in prison in the US are serving for violent offenses. Even if we released every non-violent offender currently incarcerated, the US would still be in the top 15 countries in the world for prisoners per capita. Everyone railing against the prison system in America seems to have bought into a myth that our prison system is out of control because of harsh sentences for “minor” infractions like drug offenses and theft. The reality is that American society, for whatever reason, is more violent than most other societies in the world. You can try and make the argument that the prison system is at fault, but I think it’s more likely that other more fundamental aspects of America are larger factors contributing to it, and attempting to abolish the police or overhaul the prison system are unlikely to do much, as that’s simply treating symptoms and not the disease.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  Guns.
maxmcd 5y ago
I disagree. Straight from the wikipedia intro: > According to a 2014 Human Rights Watch report, "tough-on-crime" laws adopted since the 1980s have filled U.S. prisons with mostly nonviolent offenders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
- darawk 5y ago
  It doesn't seem like you read what I said. I'm not defending "tough on crime laws". And I specifically said we should be softer on non-violent crime. So i'm not sure what it is you're responding to.
aidenn0 5y ago
I'd also like to point out that enforcement also has a disproportionate effect on skilled crime vs. unskilled crime. Pickpocketing is one example; in areas that enforcement against pickpocketing goes up, the crime nearly disappears, because it becomes not worth it to learn the skill (and it's more likely that those who could teach you the skill are in prison).

by darawk 5y ago

scarmig 5y ago

Severity of punishment isn't the best way to disincentivize crime. If you have two justice regimes, one where 50% is caught and punished and the other where 25% is but punishment is twice as harsh, the former will be far more effective at decreasing crime. (Mostly) abolish prisons, and put tons of police officers into the community.

darawk 5y ago
You're absolutely right. But deterrence isn't the only issue of importance. We do want to select punishments that deter. But we also simply want to separate incorrigible offenders from society. Every year a murderer is locked up is a year they aren't killing anyone (except maybe other prisoners). I agree that increasing the probability of getting caught is good too, though.

bart_spoon 5y ago

Over half of all individuals in prison in the US are serving for violent offenses. Even if we released every non-violent offender currently incarcerated, the US would still be in the top 15 countries in the world for prisoners per capita. Everyone railing against the prison system in America seems to have bought into a myth that our prison system is out of control because of harsh sentences for “minor” infractions like drug offenses and theft. The reality is that American society, for whatever reason, is more violent than most other societies in the world. You can try and make the argument that the prison system is at fault, but I think it’s more likely that other more fundamental aspects of America are larger factors contributing to it, and attempting to abolish the police or overhaul the prison system are unlikely to do much, as that’s simply treating symptoms and not the disease.

peakaboo 5y ago
Guns.

maxmcd 5y ago

I disagree. Straight from the wikipedia intro: > According to a 2014 Human Rights Watch report, "tough-on-crime" laws adopted since the 1980s have filled U.S. prisons with mostly nonviolent offenders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

darawk 5y ago
It doesn't seem like you read what I said. I'm not defending "tough on crime laws". And I specifically said we should be softer on non-violent crime. So i'm not sure what it is you're responding to.

aidenn0 5y ago

I'd also like to point out that enforcement also has a disproportionate effect on skilled crime vs. unskilled crime. Pickpocketing is one example; in areas that enforcement against pickpocketing goes up, the crime nearly disappears, because it becomes not worth it to learn the skill (and it's more likely that those who could teach you the skill are in prison).