crime and punishment: the fallacy of deterrents

when coming up with punishments for crimes, there is normally the argument of how well something acts as a deterrent to others - i would argue that no sentence is capable of that.

when a criminal goes out to commit an act, its with the expectation they won't be caught - otherwise only the densest of them would attempt to commit said act. so in other words, no matter what possible sentence they may get, they don't think it applies to them.

the only real deterrent is giving them cause to think they will get caught, and that requires improved detection rates - especially for first time offenders.

now whilst i said a sentence won't deter others thinking about committing a crime, i do think they can be used to deter recidivism.

this is why i favour physical punishments over prison or social punishments (like community orders) for first-time offenders. incarceration should only be for those who represent a physical danger to society, and should only be released when that danger has passed.

we're an adaptive species, so placing people in prison will lead to them in general to adapting to life there and will act as no real deterrent to avoid going back in - of course there will be exceptions.

on the other hand we've seen through classical conditioning that we have a stimulus/response model, so if we can associate criminal activity with pain that will act as a deterrent, much as we learn that hot things hurt us when we touch them.

imo, using punishments such as lashes will reduce crime by reducing recidivism, and free-up prison spaces to place the really dangerous criminals in prison for longer periods of time.

i would also suggest that such physical punishments not be viewable by the public, as they would be to teach the criminal a lesson and not provide public spectacle and humiliation.

^ Indeed. There is a strong connection between social circumstances and crime. Yet another reason to favor a social net.

humiliation comes problems - people resent embarrassment more than pain, and you create a situation where getting hurt and taking it mockingly would be regarded as mark of honour.

this makes my point about humiliation - but i disagree the sentence alone would be embarrassing. theres no need at all to publicise whose getting punished, if anything i would want the names of those being punished to be kept secret to avoid that very thing.

Tell that to Singapore.

i agree that prison doesn't work, well not in all cases, but i think corporal punishment would - we have a very strong learning ability tied into our sensory systems, and making use of them makes a great deal more sense.

there are many, many reasons for people turning to crime, and i don't think theres a way of halting them. we could doubtlessly use education to make inroads on many of them, but to fully prevent? not a chance sadly.

Explain Enron then. It has nothing to do with social circumstances. It has everything to do with greed, anger, looking to have a short cut instead of working for a thing, and/or jealousy. Those are deficencies in a man's soul and no amount of social programs will ever correct that.

yes, because ken lay and robert maxwell were the very definition of poverty

dan's right in that social inclusion has a lot to do with it, but anyone suggesting povery as a marker is doing a major disservice to the majority of poor people.

as for dealing with social exclusion, thats a can of worms thats hard to deal with, and would require a lot of socially conservative and authoritarian ideas.

i'm not sure i'd be comfortable with such things as we'd be effectively rolling back to the 50's, with women back in the kitchen, divorce difficult to do and unwedded mothers being made into pariahs.

i'm not keen on going back to that at all.

yet crime is far higher today with recidivism rates increasing, so i would say it certainly worked better than what we have now.

as i said at the start, theres no way to deter someone committing an initial crime, its all about reducing the likelihood they'll repeat the crime.

if someone been horsewhipped for stealing bread, the next time they consider it they'll remember a whole world of pain and weigh up if the rewards worth the risk.

I'm a bit sick of 'prison doesn't work' as a mantra. It doesn't solve the criminal's problems, true, but it gives the rest of us a break for a while - and with some criminals, that's all you can do until they grow out of it.
But agreeing that social inclusion is the key, I'd like to see some sort of system where parole went along with a guaranteed job, to see if people have grown out of it and are ready to be part of society again.

I'm not a big fan of a guaranteed job with parole. I'm not guaranteed any job training or a job and I've committed no crime. Why should I be put at a disadvantage in the job market to someone who has clearly demonstrated that he isn't willing to obey the law?

Who says you'd be at a disadvantage? I'm not exactly thinking shop assitant, or hospital cleaner, or anything where a degree of trust is concerned. I'm thinking more fruit picker, street sweeper - the sort of jobs that are usually hard to fill.

Strong != absolute. Strong generally != strong with respect to specific crimes.

I don't see any disagreement here.

The jobs you're mentioning parolees take (fruit picker, street sweeper) are already available and pay nothing. You put him in that position where he's making no money an hour and he's right back where he started from. So why waste our time and money when this same parolee can walk into his local McDonalds and walk out with a job and will be at the same level as the job you're guaranteeing him.

So then we decide to train him and put him in a skilled labor job, where he can earn money and self-respect. The problem is, there are only so many skilled labor jobs and putting him into a guaranteed job means one less is available for law abiding citizens to compete for.

So our choices are crap jobs that he can get on his own or skilled labor that takes away a position from a law-abiding citizen.

If a company owner is willing to set up some agreement with theprisons, then I'm all for it if it is his decision to hire convicts and parolees to give them a second chance. But if it is some kind of government mandate, I'm totally against the concept. Let him compete like everyone else, and if a criminal record is going to be a disadvantage, well, he made his bed and he can sleep in it.

The implication is poor=prone to crime.

If the poor are more prone to crime, why do the rich participate at all? If the answer is people make bad choices based on their own desires, then throwing all the money in the world at welfare isn't going to cure the disease which is the human heart.

People commit crimes because they choose to, not because they are rih/poor, black/white, tall/short, or any other criteria.

I'll tell you why I think there's a strong connection between crime and low income, and it doesn't have anything to do with needing a "social net".

In my experience working with people in the lower rung of our society, these folk, be they black, white, or whatever, habitually make bad decisions. They drink, they gamble, they CHOOSE to engage in shady activities...

Knew a guy working for our lawn company, he was in his late 40's, a major alcoholic, and would often stay out till three or four in the morning then come in hung over. Got pulled over for drunk driving, and then FAILED his alcohol test, even with 24 hours notice. He couldn't go ONE day without getting drunk.

Knew another guy, also in his late 40's, this time a black man, who we discovered used drugs. He also had a brutal altercation with his live-in girlfriend, the mother of his third child (But not the other two), wherein he was arrested for domestic violence.

And that's just two examples. I'm sure others would have more. My point? Plenty of people have lifted themselves out of bad situations and made something of their lives, my parents both being examples of that. As far as I'm concerned, if you're turning to crime to get by, it's because you aren't willing to do actual work to lift yourself up.

You can whine and complain about special circumstances all you want, but nothing gives you the right to take from other people just because they're currently better off than you. No social net needed, just a boot to the ass.

There are plenty of people living in slums that aren't looking to cut my throat for my pocket change. It's easier to do that than to get a job.

There are plenty of people in gated communities looking to lie about my stock values. It's easier to do that then to increase the value of my stock legitimately.

It isn't about secutiry in the slums, it's about opportunity to commit a crime. There aren't going to be a whole lot of people in a position in a slum to commit securities fraud. But if you take that mugger and put him in a three piece suit, he'd rob you just the same, only he'd use a pen instead of a knife. If you put the lvenstmen banker who robs you blind in a ghetto, he's rob you just the same.

It isn't the environment, it's the man. All the environment does is define the opportunites for crime.

What percentage of the prison population you guys think is white collar stuff like Enron and what percentage is relatively petty crime like thievery? Probably 10.000:1 in favor of petty I'd say, shooting from the hip. Types like the ones responsible for Enron and our very own BAWAG scandal that broke last year only show one thing: some people are so greedy that it's pathological. It's when millions aren't enough when they go and steal because they want hundreds of millions. Here's the big BUT tho. These will never pay. They'll have the best lawyers, they'll have a million excuses, and in the unlikely event that they actually go behind bars, they go to something that rather resembles a spa. You can't do squat to prevent them unless you start state control of all businesses. But we don't want that, do we.

I'm talking about the petty street criminal. Weird how crime is soaring in countries with weak or failing social systems and really low in the ones with strong systems. Go and compare the US, Austria and Sweden and you'll find proof of what I said. I didn't look it up because I'm lazy but I'm willing to bet that Sweden has the lowest crime rate - and the strongest social system. Austria is somewhere in the middle and the US has the highest

just because somethings been done a certain for a long time doesn't mean its functional.

and that radical change may very well be for the better.

not compared to public punishment, no.

make a pratfall whilst trying to impress someone, what hurts more - the bruise or your pride? same logic with keeping such punishments private.

Not here. We have a guaranteed minimum wage. It's bloody hard work, but it's not unrewarded.
In this country, it's the catering trade that's usually the haunt of illegals, it would certainly be harder there to find jobs for ex-cons.

i'd rather see them dealt with rather than the people being given a break. especially given the costs and the difficulties in building new prisons - if we're throwing people who download kiddie porn back on the streets in order to ensure some chav isn't going to be going be dealing coke for a couple of years, thats a system that badly needs fixing.

a nice idea, but difficult to do - employers are increasingly unhappy employing law-abiding brits, let alone those just out of prison.

Oh? Have you seen the prison some of these Enron guys are in?
You're making a lot of assumptions pulled from nowhere.

Ok. The most common type, to be sure.

So, assuming your made-up stats are magically correct, you're saying we should BRIBE people not willing to work into not robbing us?

Cause they correllate with how willing people are to work hard

THey got to be that way being raised in an environment where they believe they shouldn't HAVE to work as hard as the next guy.