|
|
|
|
|
|
by NeuNeurosis
1479 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the use of jail time as a deterrence to criminal action. While we like to believe that is the case
"One problem with deterrence theory is that it assumes that human beings are rational actors who consider the consequences of their behavior before deciding to commit a crime; however, this is often not the case."
https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01...
There is a ton of research in this same vein. |
|
|
> In broad terms punishment may be expected to affect deterrence in one of two ways. First, by increasing the certainty of punishment, potential offenders may be deterred by the risk of apprehension. For example, if there is an increase in the number of state troopers patrolling highways on a holiday weekend, some drivers may reduce their speed in order to avoid receiving a ticket. Second, the severity of punishment may influence behavior if potential offenders weigh the consequences of their actions and conclude that the risks of punishment are too severe.
Jail time can reduce crime by a third mechanism (I'm not sure if this would be considered "deterrence" or something else but to the people the crimes would be committed against it doesn't really matter) which does not involve any decisions on the part of the person, rational or not.
Namely, during their time in jail their opportunities for committing crimes are greatly reduced. Consider someone who would normally rob one bank every 6 months. If that person spends 10 years in jail every time they are caught, and is caught within a month after each robbery, they are going to commit under 10 bank robberies over their lifetime.
If they only spend 1 year in jail after every robbery they could commit they could do 80 or more robberies over their lifetime.
Whether the cost of keeping them in jail 10 times as long is worth it for a nearly order of magnitude reduction in the number of robberies they commit is worth it is an entirely different question.