3 ms·
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 pe
by 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 agoAccording 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 agoThe 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.