"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:

> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does
> >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes
> >> thinking they will not get *caught*.
> >
> > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes
> > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time.
>
> That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's
> what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It
> doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who
> commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't
> deter anybody.

You need to distinguish the difference between the fear of getting caught and
the fear of the penalty. Paying a fine or doing jail time is the penalty that
people pay for getting caught committing crimes. So you are right, that is the
penalty, not the deterrent. Given the fact that the person committed the crime,
the penalty was not a deterrent ...for that person. Awareness of the penalty
was a deterrent for the people who had the opportunity to commit the crime but
didn't because they knew about the consequences.

Similarly, the person who committed the crime was not deterred by the fear of
getting caught. Yet, many people are deterred by the fear of getting caught. I
have seen people who argue that the police should not hide to catch speeders.
Instead, they should locate themselves and their speed enforcement equipment in
high visibility locations. I would suggest that this would encourage people to
obey speed limits only where it is obvious that they will get caught.

> >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism
> >> rates show it doesn't work.
> >
> > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people
> > so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to
> > support themselves without having to resort to crime.
>
> Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the
> first place.

There are lots of things that make people criminals. In her case, it was greed.
She wanted more money. Maybe we could use torture people like her. We could use
some negative reward system like giving her a shock every time she reaches for
money.


>
>
> > Martha has job
> > skills. I don't
> > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so
> > she can easily afford to pay a fine.
>
> And that would be appropriate given the crime.

In that case, how big a fine would it take to make it hurt?