I believe that with the increased efficiency in identifying and prosecuting small offenses, punishment should be modulated down accordingly.

Crime happens when the risk of getting caught times the cost of punishment is lower than the benefit of the crime. If you increase the risk of getting caught, you may safely (in fact, you should) decrease the cost of being punished.

How immediate and certain the response to crime appears to be affects the perception of risk.

And even when there's no cop around, other things influence this perception. If there are a lot of people around and things are orderly and many visual cues contribute to the perception of order, the perception of risk is greater.

This calculation of course needs to take into account the limited rationality of humans, and the time value of rewards and punishments.

I always say that working with Vulcans is much easier...

I'd rather take action against the people causing problems than force everyone else to the costs of the problems they cause.

For example, people throwing plastic bags everywhere. Now were trying to restrict the freedom of people who don't litter rather than holding responsible those causing the problem.

what is it with Singapore? <br> I am curious.

They still cane people there. Like smart ass American kids that steal street signs.

I actually think that's not a bad idea! I want to read this book:

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/

You're aware that the author is trying to point out the inhumanity of the American justicial system, more than actually defending flogging? (From your link: "Certainly In Defense of Flogging is more about the horrors of our prison-industrial complex than an ode to flogging".)

It probably is interesting, though.

it's safe to the point of being sterile. (this is a personal opinion, not a fact)

Death sentence for minor infraction. Only minor exaggeration. Oh, an your vote is numbered, careful who you vote for.

You're not alone - if I had to pick one word to describe Singapore it would also be "sterile".

Gibson is a great writer, but what's "wrong" with Singapore is not what he describes. If you wonder what Singapore would be as a democracy, look at Switzerland.

And there's nothing "wrong" with law and order like in Switzerland. Chaos like in Hong Kong only seems romantic until you become a victim of violent crime. Then all of a sudden its not cute anymore.

Could not agree more. Having lived and worked in Singapore (and Zurich) I can honestly say that for the vast majority of people it is a great place to live. Singaporeans and expats all acknowledge that yes, it is more strict than the US or Australia, but unless you enjoy things like vandalizing cars, selling drugs, or stealing street signs you can live exactly how you like, with the added peace of mind of knowing that you have a near zero chance of being the victim of violent crime.

I am guessing (perhaps incorrectly) that most of the people who talk about what is "wrong" with Singapore have either only been there once for a few days or have never been and only base their opinion of the place on the story about the American kid who got caned.