[swiftcoder]

> In other words, the likelihood of being harmed while attempting the crime needs to be much higher

Humans are notoriously bad at evaluating probabilities. They'll buy lottery tickets at 1:300,000,000 odds, and are upset when an 85% shot in XCOM misses...

The likelihood of being harmed would need to be basically 100% before folks would stop taking the risk.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

> The likelihood of being harmed would need to be basically 100% before folks would stop taking the risk.

Your terms are acceptable.

In all seriousness, there are cultures in the middle east that do (or did) this sort of thing. Losing a hand for stealing, etc.

[kelnos]

That's not a 100% probability of being harmed, though. That's only if you get caught. Most criminals believe they won't get caught.

[cjbgkagh]

They are less likely to reoffend if harmed, most crimes are done by repeat offenders.

[swiftcoder]

> They are less likely to reoffend if harmed, most crimes are done by repeat offenders.

Since most current-day legal systems severely limit employment opportunities for former criminals, it's pretty hard to determine whether they would re-offend in a society that didn't inflict continual punishment in this way

[cjbgkagh]

It’s not that hard to know, since they’re often not caught on their first crime but on their Nth. They leave fingerprints that’ll link the crimes together, so we already have stats on how likely a person will reoffend even when they are not punished at all.

Criminal behavior is strongly linked to IQ and like IQ is largely hereditary. It’s dumb people thinking they’ve figured out a trick to game the system.

We have a labor glut which is the primary reason employment opportunities are so restricted for offenders, I think it’s unhealthy for society to keep importing so many people in these circumstances. I also think allowing so much violence in prisons, effectively pressuring people to join gangs, is extremely counterproductive.