3 ms·

If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? Let them steal as they please? Close down y

If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? Let them steal as they please? Close down your stores? Ruin what could be a high trust society? When people care so little about your livelihood and your cultural rules, violence becomes an acceptable deterrent. And people who take issue with this perspective seem to act as though thieves have no control over their actions. It's actually very simple: if you don't want to risk being shot at, don't steal from people. The majority of burglary and robbery in the US is emphatically not committed out of desperation over food and/or shelter. Welfare covers that.

josephcsible 5y ago
> If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? How about a sentence of 20 to life? Even if that's still not enough to be effective as a deterrent, it means you won't have repeat criminals, since they'll still be in jail for their last crime.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  In practice law enforcement requires tens of minutes to respond. Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result; nobody is afraid of getting caught. You are there, it's your stuff. You should be able to defend it.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result I've seen those videos, but aren't almost all of them from places where the DA refuses to prosecute even when the thieves do get caught?
- dspillett 5y ago
  > How about a sentence of 20 to life? A punishment similar to murder for breaking & entering and theft?! Picture this: you catch a group in the act, they now have a choice: 20 to life if they leave you alive and able to report who they are or kidnap/maim/kill you so they have less chance of getting identified (if they are, the punishment is no worse, if they aren't they get away: so the range of possibilities is 50% better).
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Fine, make it 10-20 instead. But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective.
    - dspillett 5y ago
      > Fine, make it 10-20 instead. Would still push people towards the worse crime to cover their tracks I expect, and wouldn't be a full deterrent because it doesn't account for people acting under duress that is more dangerous in their mind than what the law is threatening. Furthermore, there is a cost to keeping someone locked up for 10-to-20. Do you want to pay that out of your taxes? Because that is where it would come from. > But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective. People still steal in places where the punishment is losing a hand or being stoned to death. What do you propose that would be a greater deterrent than those?

josephcsible 5y ago

> If thieves have repeatedly shown that "proportional" (i.e. nonviolent) deterrents do not phase them, what do you do? How about a sentence of 20 to life? Even if that's still not enough to be effective as a deterrent, it means you won't have repeat criminals, since they'll still be in jail for their last crime.

stickfigure 5y ago
In practice law enforcement requires tens of minutes to respond. Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result; nobody is afraid of getting caught. You are there, it's your stuff. You should be able to defend it.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Watch youtube videos of thieves in Walgreens to see the result I've seen those videos, but aren't almost all of them from places where the DA refuses to prosecute even when the thieves do get caught?
dspillett 5y ago
> How about a sentence of 20 to life? A punishment similar to murder for breaking & entering and theft?! Picture this: you catch a group in the act, they now have a choice: 20 to life if they leave you alive and able to report who they are or kidnap/maim/kill you so they have less chance of getting identified (if they are, the punishment is no worse, if they aren't they get away: so the range of possibilities is 50% better).
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Fine, make it 10-20 instead. But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    > Fine, make it 10-20 instead. Would still push people towards the worse crime to cover their tracks I expect, and wouldn't be a full deterrent because it doesn't account for people acting under duress that is more dangerous in their mind than what the law is threatening. Furthermore, there is a cost to keeping someone locked up for 10-to-20. Do you want to pay that out of your taxes? Because that is where it would come from. > But clearly the punishments we have now are too lenient to be effective. People still steal in places where the punishment is losing a hand or being stoned to death. What do you propose that would be a greater deterrent than those?