4 ms·
> Not true. First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool of willing thieves. You say this, but Prohibition and the Drug War both provide direct
by bsder 3y ago
> Not true. First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool of willing thieves.
You say this, but Prohibition and the Drug War both provide direct counter-evidence to that statement.
There is always someone desperate enough to be on the bottom rungs of criminal organizations.
You reduce organized crime by taking out the leaders.
- citrin_ru 3y agoProhibition driven alcohol prices up and risk of prosecution was compensated by high profit. For fenced goods there is an upper bound - the price in supermarket / online.
- t0suj4 3y agoOrganized crime during prohibition was there because there was demand and someone willing to risk it for money. Demand for cheaper (stolen) goods was always there and the risk was significantly lowered so a lot of thieves took that opportunity to make some money. Whether someone chooses the path of crime out of desperation depends on one's culture. If the crime organization has an hierarchy then it might be easier to take out the leaders.
- prepend 3y ago> You reduce organized crime by taking out the leaders. You take out the leaders by arresting the weakest link and working up. You may enjoy watching The Wire. Aside from being maybe the best tv show ever, they go deeply how to take out organized crime (and the societal issues driving crime).