3 ms·
I’m far from an expert on this - but doesn’t it seem like they are just locking up all the people inclined to commit murder, not actually deterring people for t
by elil17 2y ago
I’m far from an expert on this - but doesn’t it seem like they are just locking up all the people inclined to commit murder, not actually deterring people for the most part? It still seems consistent with the idea that crime is mostly impulse-based and hard to deter.
Additionally, wouldn’t less serious crimes (like shoplifting) be even harder to deter than murder, since they are even more likely to be committed impulsively?
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThe two are not incompatible. You can lock up the people most likely to murder; before you solve all possible society causes and build perfect deterrence. I do know though, that your ability to build deterrence, or fix societal causes, will be heavily impaired to the point of impossibility if you don’t fix the marauder problem first. Deterrence is a preventative measure like brushing your teeth - but you can't brush your teeth later out of gingivitis after-the-fact. It’s like saying fixing corrupt nations need democracy. Maybe - but if the people are starving, that’s the first problem needing fixing, or the attempt at democratic reforms will certainly fail.