4 ms·

I'd love to see how much revenue was lost from these thefts vs the average taxpayer cost of imprisoning all the involved folks for however long Union Pacific wi

by Osmose 5y ago

I'd love to see how much revenue was lost from these thefts vs the average taxpayer cost of imprisoning all the involved folks for however long Union Pacific wishes they were locked up for. Ignoring the obvious slippery slope / long term effect objection, it'd be wild if it was actually cheaper to just pay the losses back and prosecute no one.

nitrogen 5y ago
One problem with this approach, even if it's true, is that when you combine overprosecution of victimless crimes with rampant victim-ful crime, everyone loses respect for the system.
londgine 5y ago
My guess is that in most cases it would be cheaper (in the short term) to simply have a train employee stand in from of the train distributing money for the robbers to walk away. Of course, long term that would have an awful ROI. The robbers would return every time, and more robbers would join them.
- Osmose 5y ago
  If you squint and change who is giving out the money this kinda looks like universal basic income
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Using this same logic, why on earth should you ever pay for something less than $10? Maybe even $20. Just having the cop drive to the store to talk to you is going to cost more than that. Yea I know, this a bit facetious, this is essentially already the case.
imgabe 5y ago
The logical conclusion then would be that it is no longer economically viable to produce and sell the products on those trains, including things like EpiPens, so we simply would not have them. If that's what we want, then that's the direction we're headed. Want to buy something for less than $1000? Too bad, it's not worth producing since it can be stolen with impunity.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
avalys 5y ago
What your proposed analysis misses is the cost savings from the deterrent effect of all the crime not committed. To a large extent this is happening because people believe they will not be punished. If a group of criminals were actually locked up for 10 years, it would discourage others from committing the crimes at all in the future. That’s where the real cost savings - and value to society of punishing criminals - is.
- Osmose 5y ago
  According to the Department of Justice, prison time is not a very effective way to deter crime, and increased punishment severity does not deter crime: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr... (sources at the bottom) Instead it claims the certainty of being caught is more effective than the actual punishment. And if Union Pacific is doing as well as they claim at catching the people responsible, what does that say about the motivators driving these people?
  - avalys 5y ago
    The page you linked has a large headline halfway through: "3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished." "Caught and punished" is the important part here. The problem is that today there is effectively no punishment and no consequence for getting caught. In fact, the people who get caught go right back to the railroad tracks and do it again, and brag to the cops that their charge was reduced to misdemeanor trespassing. Even if it failed to deter others (which I don't concede), putting these people in jail would stop these same people from committing the same crime again, which at least would be an improvement over the current situation.

by Osmose 5y ago

nitrogen 5y ago

One problem with this approach, even if it's true, is that when you combine overprosecution of victimless crimes with rampant victim-ful crime, everyone loses respect for the system.

londgine 5y ago

My guess is that in most cases it would be cheaper (in the short term) to simply have a train employee stand in from of the train distributing money for the robbers to walk away. Of course, long term that would have an awful ROI. The robbers would return every time, and more robbers would join them.

Osmose 5y ago
If you squint and change who is giving out the money this kinda looks like universal basic income

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

Using this same logic, why on earth should you ever pay for something less than $10? Maybe even $20. Just having the cop drive to the store to talk to you is going to cost more than that. Yea I know, this a bit facetious, this is essentially already the case.

imgabe 5y ago

The logical conclusion then would be that it is no longer economically viable to produce and sell the products on those trains, including things like EpiPens, so we simply would not have them. If that's what we want, then that's the direction we're headed. Want to buy something for less than $1000? Too bad, it's not worth producing since it can be stolen with impunity.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

avalys 5y ago

What your proposed analysis misses is the cost savings from the deterrent effect of all the crime not committed. To a large extent this is happening because people believe they will not be punished. If a group of criminals were actually locked up for 10 years, it would discourage others from committing the crimes at all in the future. That’s where the real cost savings - and value to society of punishing criminals - is.

Osmose 5y ago
According to the Department of Justice, prison time is not a very effective way to deter crime, and increased punishment severity does not deter crime: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr... (sources at the bottom) Instead it claims the certainty of being caught is more effective than the actual punishment. And if Union Pacific is doing as well as they claim at catching the people responsible, what does that say about the motivators driving these people?
- avalys 5y ago
  The page you linked has a large headline halfway through: "3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished." "Caught and punished" is the important part here. The problem is that today there is effectively no punishment and no consequence for getting caught. In fact, the people who get caught go right back to the railroad tracks and do it again, and brag to the cops that their charge was reduced to misdemeanor trespassing. Even if it failed to deter others (which I don't concede), putting these people in jail would stop these same people from committing the same crime again, which at least would be an improvement over the current situation.