Does it prevent stealing? Are there fewer catalytic converter thefts in the US than elsewhere, per capita?

I think the relevant comparison is Texas, not the U.S.

Why do people steal? Address the motivation to steal and the rates will drop.

Because it's an easy way to acquire resources. And a low-risk one, in your punishment free world too. Look at SF, where crime rings will happily walk straight into a store, scoop things off the shelves and walk out with nary a care.

People like to talk about desperation, and "they're just poor", but this is very much not the reality. SF again, the crime isn't from some down on their luck guy trying to get his next meal, it's organized crime.

There will always exist people who will happily and without remorse take from others for their own benefit. The motivation here is always the same. Getting shit without having to work for it. The disincentive is similarly the same. Risk-reward balance. The motivation? The risk is negligible and the reward is large. Either reduce the reward or increase the risk, or both.

In countries with good social safety nets, crime like this is relatively non-existent. Organized crime's recruits are the poor, who see it as a more reliable way of making a living wage, when alternatives for doing so don't exist.

Take the Japanese Yakuza as an example. Japan's still enforcement of laws against the Yakuza definitely helped reduce their membership, but if you look at why they're failing to recruit, it's not due to law enforcement, it's because people are looking at the risk/reward: the Yakuza doesn't have a retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Combined with the risk of jail, it keeps the recruitment lower. They're so desperate at this point that they're targeting the homeless for recruitment.

Without the financial side of the equation, law enforcement simply doesn't matter. If you can make a living wage through crime, but can't without crime, you'll have more people joining criminal organizations, regardless of the risk. Do we need laws to be enforced? Of course; I don't know why you think I want the world to be punishment-free. But we also need to fix our social issues for that to be at all effective.

I'll flip this on you: Without law enforcement, the financial side of the equation simply doesn't matter. There will always be people who want to get things for free, regardless of the societal cost. Remove this disincentive and they'll run rampant.

Besides. This is a non-sequitur anyway. You need both; Security nets reduce the desperation motive, and enforcement penalizes the "get shit for free" incentive. As you've said so yourself

>it's because people are looking at the risk/reward

Most countries with good social safety nets also come with good rule of law and enforcement. Removing enforcement in place of a good social security net isn't compensating, it's lunacy.

> Most countries with good social safety nets also come with good rule of law and enforcement.

The US has good rule of law and enforcement. Even SF, as much as people complain about it, has historically low crime rates. Police stats show crime hasn't drastically increased, but videos of crimes are being shared virally, increasing the perception of crime. The police haven't been defunded, the prosecution rates for most crimes are similar to before Chesa (some are higher, and others are lower, but none are drastically lower). The most visible issue is the crime rings that are wiping out stores, and those crime rings are profitable enough to pay much higher than a living wage, which is attractive for desperate people.

This isn't a non-sequitur. You're looking at countries that have good social nets and saying they also have good law enforcement, but if you look at countries with poor social safety nets and high crime rates, they also have tend to have tough crime enforcement. The common thing across countries with low crime rates, is good social safety nets.

Two parts here:

Crime in the USA:

>The US has good rule of law and enforcement. Even SF, as much as people complain about it, has historically low crime rates. Police stats show crime hasn't drastically increased, but videos of crimes are being shared virally, increasing the perception of crime.

I'm rather doubtful of this, especially with the spat between the police and boudin regarding the stats. However, comparing what I've seen and been told SF to multiple other cities I've seen, the US seems to be in a particularly bad situation, crime-wise. Car break-ins are rare in what I'd consider low-crime cities. Where I live right now? They're completely unheard of.

Furthermore, you get a lot from the type of crime. This isn't some desperate poor person trying to sneak essentials. It's blatant, bold shoplifting that clearly demonstrates that they have no expectation of retribution or arrest.

Security nets as the end-all:

My take on this is that it boils down fundamentally to incentives. Social security nets help on one end, reducing pressure on said desperation, reducing the desire to steal for some. Proper, consistent enforcement helps on the other, providing a countermeasure to the fundamental incentive of "free stuff". A common refrain here is about how incentive structures can result in dysfunctional results. The standard example is the company that breaks the law, earns a billion from that and gets fined a couple hundred million. Why is it that this no longer applies once you talk about property crime.

"Tough on crime" is a red herring here. It's not just about the penalty. It's also about the consistency of enforcement and likelihood of arrest/capture.