Shouldn’t the system be set up to reward the good thing more than the bad thing when possible? If someone is in a position of power from doing bad things, how could you expect them to stop of their own volition?
One problem with rewarding an action is that humans are very good at gaming rules. For example, let's say I get X for donating to charity. I can for example setup my own charity, donate to it, pay myself all its income as salary and then just collect lot's of X.
The US tax system is a perfect example of this I'd say.
One of the most useful monetary goals in life is being able to afford US federal appeal's court. It's the only part of the system where arbiters of the law actually begin to analyze the law. There is no dog and pony show for jurors there, no instructions that a prosecutor can tell the judges and sway them.
So it wouldn't matter what a single judge thought in lower court, if you were compliant.
That logic doesn't make sense. Everyone has the potential to do something bad. If you have a concealed carry firearm with you, should you get rewarded for not shooting someone on a particular day?
What's more interesting on the "good deed - bad deed" ometer is
> Among those who pinned down the attacker was James Ford, 42, who is also thought to have tried to save the life of a woman who had been stabbed. Ford was jailed for life in 2004 for the murder of 21-year-old Amanda Champion.
A system that rewards the morally 'right' behavior seems ripe for abuse. Should we not set the expectation that one should be 'good' as the base of our society contract?
The US tax system is a perfect example of this I'd say.