[mattdeboard]

> The threat of punishment is an effective deterrent.

> [Police] arresting for petty crime however [is] effective

Incorrect. These are myths that people fall back on when they want to advocate for the same policy positions that have produced worse social outcomes for at least the past 40 years. The same thing, over and over again, driven by the belief that punishment must be involved to deter crime.

The threat of punishment has zero effect on deterrence. "Certainty of being caught" apparently does, but as you build a police force that makes getting caught of committing a crime a certainty, you have already fallen into the same trap America (and her cities) fall into over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

[ianbutler]

"1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment. "

That's my point, and it was the first bullet point in what you linked. Can't be worried about being caught if there is no policing.

[mattdeboard]

Right, and that's why I said:

> "Certainty of being caught" apparently does [provide a deterrent effect], but as you build a police force that makes getting caught of committing a crime a certainty, you have already fallen into the same trap America (and her cities) fall into over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Police aren't a solution. They're a problem. That's not to say there's no UPSIDE. It's to say there are trade-offs and I think they have been proven by history to be unfavorable trade-offs in the long view.