3 ms·

Police are not supposed to be a net good. They are a classic solution to a game theoretic prisoner's dilemma. If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it

Police are not supposed to be a net good. They are a classic solution to a game theoretic prisoner's dilemma. If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. So as a classic solution to the prisoners dilemma, you introduce a force that strictly decreases everyone's utility function. How can this be a good thing? Well, because it changes everyone's optimal strategy from stealing to not stealing, reaching a global optimum. Now you'll notice that this strategy only improves things if it actually changes people's behavior. If people continue stealing anyway at the same rates, then things have only gotten worse (unless you subscribe to punitive, rather than deterrent punishment). So the primary purpose of police is deterrence through the threat of negative reinforcement, not "helping people". Further, whenever police actually have to enforce laws, its a sign that something has gone wildly wrong. The deterrent didn't work, and things are worse off than if there were no police at all. Of course, in reality criminal behavior has a lot of motivators and it's not possible to change everyone's optimal strategy just by raising punishments, so you're going to have police enforcing laws. But there is no police department that is more successful than one where the police just sit around and do nothing.

baddox 12y ago
There's another angle to this too, which is the difference between the service of policing (basically, physical protection and enforcement of many laws), and the institutions that offer it. You seem to be referring to the service itself, which can theoretically be performed by the government but also by individuals, private security guards, the Mafia, etc.
kashkhan 12y ago
If the punishment is equal to the crime such as eye for an eye,or apply for an apple, then given the <1 probability of punishment, it is always rational to commit the crime because the expected value is profit. This is true regardless of whether there is police. When you add police then the utility of everyone goes down, i.e the police may randomly shoot you for doing nothing whatsoever. In the middle ages ( > 100 years ago) the english tried making the punishments more severe than the crime, e.g hanging or transportation for stealing a loaf, but that didn't result in decrease in crime, even if it made the crimes unprofitable. If the punishment is random and unfair, as it will be, Then the deterrent effect is negligible because the probability that you will get away with it increases more than the severity of punishment. Humans mostly avoid crime not because it is unprofitable, but because humans are mostly nice. Adding police to society decreases the probability that they will be nice. SO in most police states police and police penalties on society are heavy yet nobody wants to live in a police state. tldr: police do not work as a deterrent to crime.
colanderman 12y ago
If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. This makes no sense if you've ever interacted with other humans. There are several logical societal deterrents to stealing beside police. (Ostracism, retribution, foresight, modeling…)
- boyaka 12y ago
  Keeping the ni$#(!s out?
  - colanderman 12y ago
    I'm sorry, what?
    - boyaka 12y ago
      It was sarcasm. I'm implying the most common societal deterrent used in the US, based on my observations. I honestly have no idea how we could deter stealing in society. If I were to be serious I'd say the biggest source of the issue is horribly imbalanced wealth and power, but really it's a tough problem to solve. I definitely believe that Law/Justice is important though!
- Russell91 12y ago
  You're missing the forest for the trees. The fact that some people's utility function supports not stealing by default is irrelevant to the structure of the game. It's still a prisoners dilemma and the existence of the police is justified in its efforts to modify the game's structure.
  - tedks 12y ago
    It's not a prisoner's dilemma. A prisoner's dilemma is a wholly fictional and game-theoretic construct involving single, isolated interactions among perfectly rational agents. None of that has anything to do with humans. Humans never play the prisoner's dilemma because they're never any of the above concepts. Humans are certainly not perfectly rational, and almost always interact with the same set of people. You can't apply such an abstraction to public policy.

baddox 12y ago

There's another angle to this too, which is the difference between the service of policing (basically, physical protection and enforcement of many laws), and the institutions that offer it. You seem to be referring to the service itself, which can theoretically be performed by the government but also by individuals, private security guards, the Mafia, etc.

kashkhan 12y ago

If the punishment is equal to the crime such as eye for an eye,or apply for an apple, then given the <1 probability of punishment, it is always rational to commit the crime because the expected value is profit. This is true regardless of whether there is police. When you add police then the utility of everyone goes down, i.e the police may randomly shoot you for doing nothing whatsoever. In the middle ages ( > 100 years ago) the english tried making the punishments more severe than the crime, e.g hanging or transportation for stealing a loaf, but that didn't result in decrease in crime, even if it made the crimes unprofitable. If the punishment is random and unfair, as it will be, Then the deterrent effect is negligible because the probability that you will get away with it increases more than the severity of punishment. Humans mostly avoid crime not because it is unprofitable, but because humans are mostly nice. Adding police to society decreases the probability that they will be nice. SO in most police states police and police penalties on society are heavy yet nobody wants to live in a police state. tldr: police do not work as a deterrent to crime.

colanderman 12y ago

If there were no enforcement of laws by police, it would be in everyone's best interest to e.g. steal. Regardless of whether other people steal, you'd be better off doing it. This makes no sense if you've ever interacted with other humans. There are several logical societal deterrents to stealing beside police. (Ostracism, retribution, foresight, modeling…)

boyaka 12y ago
Keeping the ni$#(!s out?
- colanderman 12y ago
  I'm sorry, what?
  - boyaka 12y ago
    It was sarcasm. I'm implying the most common societal deterrent used in the US, based on my observations. I honestly have no idea how we could deter stealing in society. If I were to be serious I'd say the biggest source of the issue is horribly imbalanced wealth and power, but really it's a tough problem to solve. I definitely believe that Law/Justice is important though!
Russell91 12y ago
You're missing the forest for the trees. The fact that some people's utility function supports not stealing by default is irrelevant to the structure of the game. It's still a prisoners dilemma and the existence of the police is justified in its efforts to modify the game's structure.
- tedks 12y ago
  It's not a prisoner's dilemma. A prisoner's dilemma is a wholly fictional and game-theoretic construct involving single, isolated interactions among perfectly rational agents. None of that has anything to do with humans. Humans never play the prisoner's dilemma because they're never any of the above concepts. Humans are certainly not perfectly rational, and almost always interact with the same set of people. You can't apply such an abstraction to public policy.