5 ms·

Prosecuting crime does not eliminate crime; it minimizes crime. For the criminal justice system to deter crime, there has to be a reasonable chance of getting

by efitz 5y ago

Prosecuting crime does not eliminate crime; it minimizes crime. For the criminal justice system to deter crime, there has to be a reasonable chance of getting caught and punished, and the punishment must significantly exceed the benefit that obtained from the crime.

tomlockwood 5y ago
That's not what I've heard: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-pu...
- berberous 5y ago
  Some of this is really just common sense. I believe the following: - If murder were not prosecuted, or punished by only a day in jail, murder rates would increase. It would effectively be legal. - Changing the sentence on murder from 10 years to life, however, would be unlikely to have any marginal deterrent effect. Stated more generally, I think many sentences in this country are horrifically long, and dramatically shortening them would not increase crime. But if you decrease them to a level where they are de minimis compared to the benefit of the crime, or just not prosecuted at all, I don’t need a study to tell me crime will increase. It is human nature.
  - tomlockwood 5y ago
    I've heard incorrect folk wisdom parroted as if it were true, before, so I'll wait for the study. Plenty of people claim they have a grasp on common sense, and many of them disagree.
    - efitz 5y ago
      Do you eat when you’re hungry and put on a raincoat outside when it’s raining, or do you wait for a study?
      - tomlockwood 5y ago
        Hilarious that you bought up "eating when hungry" as an example of common sense considering all the discussion about that recently. Folk wisdom loses, again :) I think I will wait for the study.
  - efitz 5y ago
    Exactly! Beyond a certain threshold, increasing punishment severity has diminishing returns (or negative, if you count the fiscal and societal costs of incarceration).
svnpenn 5y ago
> punishment This makes the big assumption that people know or care about the punishment. Most people do, but plenty of people are desperate and just don't give a shit.
- prawn 5y ago
  I think if you flip that thinking, there'd be people spreading the word that the prevention is minimal and the punishment not a serious deterrent. e.g., no one thinks "I wonder what happens if you're busted grabbing stuff out of a shipping container?" But if there's no punishment, word would spread fast. "Those guys have been doing it for weeks and no one cares. X got busted but they had to let him off light. They don't do anything about it!"
  - creato 5y ago
    There's also literal evidence from the original article that these criminals know they won't be punished and can do it with impunity.
- vba616 5y ago
  That seems likely, but that's existing criminals. Doesn't it make logical sense that lowering punishment enough will attract rational people who are not desperate to do crimes?

by efitz 5y ago

tomlockwood 5y ago

That's not what I've heard: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-pu...

berberous 5y ago
Some of this is really just common sense. I believe the following: - If murder were not prosecuted, or punished by only a day in jail, murder rates would increase. It would effectively be legal. - Changing the sentence on murder from 10 years to life, however, would be unlikely to have any marginal deterrent effect. Stated more generally, I think many sentences in this country are horrifically long, and dramatically shortening them would not increase crime. But if you decrease them to a level where they are de minimis compared to the benefit of the crime, or just not prosecuted at all, I don’t need a study to tell me crime will increase. It is human nature.
- tomlockwood 5y ago
  I've heard incorrect folk wisdom parroted as if it were true, before, so I'll wait for the study. Plenty of people claim they have a grasp on common sense, and many of them disagree.
  - efitz 5y ago
    Do you eat when you’re hungry and put on a raincoat outside when it’s raining, or do you wait for a study?
    - tomlockwood 5y ago
      Hilarious that you bought up "eating when hungry" as an example of common sense considering all the discussion about that recently. Folk wisdom loses, again :) I think I will wait for the study.
- efitz 5y ago
  Exactly! Beyond a certain threshold, increasing punishment severity has diminishing returns (or negative, if you count the fiscal and societal costs of incarceration).

svnpenn 5y ago

> punishment This makes the big assumption that people know or care about the punishment. Most people do, but plenty of people are desperate and just don't give a shit.

prawn 5y ago
I think if you flip that thinking, there'd be people spreading the word that the prevention is minimal and the punishment not a serious deterrent. e.g., no one thinks "I wonder what happens if you're busted grabbing stuff out of a shipping container?" But if there's no punishment, word would spread fast. "Those guys have been doing it for weeks and no one cares. X got busted but they had to let him off light. They don't do anything about it!"
- creato 5y ago
  There's also literal evidence from the original article that these criminals know they won't be punished and can do it with impunity.
vba616 5y ago
That seems likely, but that's existing criminals. Doesn't it make logical sense that lowering punishment enough will attract rational people who are not desperate to do crimes?