4 ms·

Actually in studies about this topic, the "proportionality" or harshness of the sentence does little to nothing to deter the crimes (more than a nominal sentenc

by gopher1 13y ago

Actually in studies about this topic, the "proportionality" or harshness of the sentence does little to nothing to deter the crimes (more than a nominal sentence). What does prevent crime is making the apprehension of a suspect guaranteed after a crime has been committed. In other words, even if the sentence is nominal, if the thief knows that he'll be caught for sure, he'll be less likely to commit the crime. If the thief knows there's a chance he won't be caught, he'll be more likely to commit the crime, even if the sentence is very harsh. This is one of the reasons why there's movement to undo the mandatory minimum sentences and harsh sentencing trends that have arisen in the past 20 years - because it doesn't actually deter crime. For this particular case, if the school had simply put up signs saying the outlets are monitored and you'll be fined for any misuse would have probably done the trick without resorting to actual police intervention.

saalweachter 13y ago
I think you're probably right. Disproportionate response only makes sense if it actually prevents future crimes. I would like to clarify the blurring of two disproportionate costs. The first is the cost to the criminal. Assume for the sake of argument that in this case we're talking a trip to the police station, a $50 fine, and 10 hours of community service. Absurd for a $0.05 theft of electricity, but a limited sort of absurdity. The criminal is made to pay a disproportionate amount in restitution for his crime. The second is the cost to the society. The cost of having a police man arrest someone for a $0.05 theft, jail him, take him to court, and supervise the community service. Hell, the cost to cash the $50 check for the fine is probably more than $0.05. The society pays a disproportionate amount to prevent a $0.05 crime. These two separate costs have two separate objections. The first violates our inherent notions of fairness; the second raises the question of cost effectiveness.

by gopher1 13y ago

saalweachter 13y ago

I think you're probably right. Disproportionate response only makes sense if it actually prevents future crimes. I would like to clarify the blurring of two disproportionate costs. The first is the cost to the criminal. Assume for the sake of argument that in this case we're talking a trip to the police station, a $50 fine, and 10 hours of community service. Absurd for a $0.05 theft of electricity, but a limited sort of absurdity. The criminal is made to pay a disproportionate amount in restitution for his crime. The second is the cost to the society. The cost of having a police man arrest someone for a $0.05 theft, jail him, take him to court, and supervise the community service. Hell, the cost to cash the $50 check for the fine is probably more than $0.05. The society pays a disproportionate amount to prevent a $0.05 crime. These two separate costs have two separate objections. The first violates our inherent notions of fairness; the second raises the question of cost effectiveness.