The threat of punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime.
EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
I think you’re getting downvotes for the statement “never been shown”. It’s an overly broad claim, and even the link you posted talks more about the severity of punishment being a weaker deterrent than the certainty of being caught (and punished). There’s still no doubt that if theft was suddenly not punished at all then there would be more theft.
From other reading I’ve done the consistency of punishment is more important, and it’s better for criminal justice systems to provide a certain small punishment than an inconsistent outsized punishment, and this has a lot to do with the way humans evaluate risks, and improved paths towards helping criminals becoming non-criminals.
Anyway, I learned a bit from the link you posted, mostly that this sort of thinking is mainstream enough to be presented like this by the DoJ. So have my upvote.
The problem with that is the government has no only removed prison as a punishment, but also removed all possible punishment as they have refused any accountability at all and disallows the use of force to defend property.
That is far far far different than what the OP is talking about
The legality of the action is not the only difference between those two locales. A right turn on red is significantly more dangerous in the UK than in the US.
The line you quoted clearly makes a distinction between getting caught and being punished. Punishments are not the only possible response to someone having committed and being convicted of a crime. A heroin user could be put in prison or sent to a rehab program. One is a punishment, the other is not.
The action taken being against what the recipient wants to do with their time is not what defines a punishment. Punishments are correctional actions that rely on the power of violence deprive the recipient of something: money, freedom, comfort, life. Rehabilitation is a correctional action that relies on reason and education for the recipient.
From other reading I’ve done the consistency of punishment is more important, and it’s better for criminal justice systems to provide a certain small punishment than an inconsistent outsized punishment, and this has a lot to do with the way humans evaluate risks, and improved paths towards helping criminals becoming non-criminals.
Anyway, I learned a bit from the link you posted, mostly that this sort of thinking is mainstream enough to be presented like this by the DoJ. So have my upvote.