[PaulDavisThe1st]

That's not really the issue though (and for the record, I agree that a person found guilty of what they were arrested for 15 times should be incarcerated).

The problem is: why is this person doing this, because there are at least two outcomes:

1. we lock them up, and a part of the problem is gone

2. we lock them up, and someone else steps in to do the same thing

From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely, and thus even if locking them up has some moral weight behind it, it isn't likely to be a solution to crime in general.

[bko]

There's only so many people that are criminally predisposed. The org doing bike thefts will stop if the penalty is high enough. Singapore has low crime because they prosecute aggressively. No one seemed to fill in for arrested gang members in El Salvador (extreme example)

Then there are the crazy person punching an Asian lady on the subway crimes and these fall squarely in 1

[maxbond]

You've blinded yourself by othering them. "There's only so many people criminally predisposed" - that may be comforting, but it's too naive to build a policy around.

100% of people would commit crimes under the right circumstances. As an extreme example, 100% of us could sustain a life changing head injury that renders us more violent and aggressive than we were before, and that could happen at any moment. The most kind and timid person you know could turn into a monster if they fell down the stairs. You could turn into a monster if you fell down the stairs. The only thing you can do to stop that from happening is to protect your head, it doesn't matter how good or virtuous you are presently.

You can't incarcerate your way out of crime. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[snozolli]

100% of us could sustain a life changing head injury that renders us more violent and aggressive than we were before, and that could happen at any moment

Then I should be imprisoned if I present a threat to the public. I don't understand what your point is.

[maxbond]

If you think that there is a distinct group of people who commit all the crimes (as was suggested), and we can solve the problem of crime by locking all of them up, than you are mistaken. Or rather, that group is "everyone."

It's an easy trap to fall into for two reasons. It would appear that you and those you know aren't capable of being criminals. This is more comforting than it is true. Everyone, including good people, has the potential to do something horrible; the problem of evil isn't that it's present in a certain group who we can imprison, the problem is that it's present in us all.

The second thing which makes "lock them all up" a seductive proposal is that it's cynical. Cynicism can feel like the opposite of naivete, so it can feel like you're being clear eyed and realistic about the situation and that the people you disagree with (say, prison abolitionists) are naive bleeding hearts. But cynicism is actually just another form of naivete. It's making the same error - blinking while staring into the abyss - with different aesthetics.

[dimensi0nal]

> Everyone has the potential to do something horrible; the problem of evil isn't that it's present in a certain group who we can imprison, the problem is that it's present in us all.

But some people are actually more predisposed towards criminality than others. We aren't blank slates.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The extent to which criminality (or any particular human behavior) is driven by circumstance or "nature" is (and for millenia has been) a matter for considerable debate.

It's clear that both contribute, which is important because that means there are neither "ur-criminals" nor "not-criminals". While some may, by their nature, be more likely to commit a certain type of crime, none are free from the possibility of doing so under some circumstances.

[FireBeyond]

> Then I should be imprisoned if I present a threat to the public.

The problem with this is that's it is extremely easy for people to define "threat" in ways that are convenient to them or that support their prejudices, a la Reefer Madness.

[_dain_]

>and for the record, I agree that a person found guilty of what they were arrested for 15 times should be incarcerated

but you know damned well that most of the time it doesn't even go to trial. they're arrested, released, arrested, released, charges pressed, charges dropped; an endless merry-go-round. eventually people stop even reporting crime, why should they bother when the criminals don't get put away?

>From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely

why? this is like the "lump of labour" fallacy but for crime.

and yes, getting rid of just a few career criminals does disproportionately reduce crime. here's a funny natural experiment from ireland:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/number-of-burgla...

[snozolli]

we lock them up, and someone else steps in to do the same thing

Crime isn't an internship program.

[RiverCrochet]

It is, it has the colloquial name of "hanging with the wrong crowd."