The Norwegian system is capital intensive, but good at preventing recidivism.[0][1][2]

Evidence based policy works. Even starting the transition to evidence based policy in the US would be hard though.

[0] https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48885846

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway

A system that works in a country won’t work in another country that is culturally different, more heterogenous, etc.

It might not work as well, but there are certainly useful hints to be taken.

At a bare minimum, it proves that recidivism is not laws-of-physics unavoidable.

As you say, going from what we have to what they have will be no simple matter. It would take decades of reform at the very least. In the meantime, it doesn't make sense to just stop improning people for minor crimes.

But, is prosecution truly the way out of this? It doesn't appear to have been effective at preventing plenty of other crimes, in America. Why would it be any more effective in this case?

Lacking crime data for the counterfactual world where crime wasn't prosecuted, I don't think you can make this assertion. Not to say that you're wrong (and I've seen evidence that you're right), but that you can't just eyeball our crime rate and come to any conclusion.

It is counterintuitive to suggest that punishments have an insignificant effect on crime rates. It doesn't pass the 'me' test- even my idealized version of myself would steal if there were no consequences, though it's tricky to judge whether I'd be more or less inclined with variable consequences. Again, doesn't mean it's not true, just sets the bar for evidence a little higher.

Well, its similarly frustrating to me that the snap response to crime in America still seems to be, more enforcement. Clearly, the crime rate is the result of a multi-faceted set of variables. Why press the "harsher punishment" button?

Also if an idealized version of yourself would still steal, perhaps that is also multi-faceted, and requires some other change to society other than the justice system. What do you think you'd steal? I think I'd steal too - mostly from large corporations, because I don't really care if Disney or Walmart profits go down.

> Clearly, the crime rate is the result of a multi-faceted set of variables. Why press the "harsher punishment" button?

Because people are perceiving a higher rate of visible crimes within a reasonably short time after the "reduce punishment" button was pushed.

Of course, going back to the old ways without any real progress on anything else is going to put us back to the old problems. (Costs of incarceration are high, concerns about fairness, concerns about conditions, etc)

> I think I'd steal too - mostly from large corporations, because I don't really care if Disney or Walmart profits go down.

I don't necessarily care about their profits per se, but if Walmart (or maybe a chain store you dislike less) leaves my community because of theft, that makes my life harder.

> I don't necessarily care about their profits per se, but if Walmart (or maybe a chain store you dislike less) leaves my community because of theft, that makes my life harder.

There's definitely already theft happening at Walmart so they have a non-zero tolerance for it. Frankly, I don't think Walmart leaving a community will necessarily be a bad thing for that community.

I should clarify that when I said 'my idealized version of myself,' I wasn't talking about an enlightened, self-actualized 'me'. I meant 'me' as I perceive myself. As far as I know, it's an accurate version, but my understanding is that that's unlikely.

I don't have a good answer for your first question, but I would steal for fun and profit.

There's a thrill to breaking the rules and getting away with it. Part of it is the Ocean's Eleven cool factor. Part of it is the feeling of being smarter or more competent than security. And part of it is shortcutting the 'I made this' circuits in one's brain and feeling proud. There's probably more to it than that.

And profit is self-explanatory. Maybe it's greed. Maybe it's that I'd rather work on my own projects than have a job. Maybe something else. But I'd appreciate free stuff, absolutely.

> There's a thrill to breaking the rules and getting away with it.

This is interesting, maybe another facet to the usefulness of rules, discussion?

> But I'd appreciate free stuff, absolutely.

But why do you need free stuff? What are you trying to achieve with the stuff?

I think you probably get where I'm going with this questioning...

We need more punishments, but of lesser severity matching the crime. Ideally with a large parole component with GPS tracking. It can be far cheaper than incarceration, have a large deterrent effect, while enabling rehabilitation.

What is the alternative though? Societal interventions are a slow, months to years long process to an acute problem. I'm sure most criminals can be reformed through years of education, therapy and trauma healing but you can't deny that lax sentencing and lax enforcement contribute to opportunistic crime sprees like organized retail theft mobs and train robberies. Nobody needs to rob trains to eat, in America, as you put it.

> Nobody needs to rob trains to eat, in America, as you put it.

They don't? That's not what I've heard.

https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

My understanding is that most of the people struggling to feed themselves make too much money to qualify for assistance, but too little to reliably feed themselves.

Obviously, those people aren't making too much money (as documented by the IRS and/or banks) by robbing trains.

When they have to invent a new term "food insecurity" and your country leads the world in obesity, you know people aren't going hungry in the normal sense of the word.

Do you feel like the obese people are robbing these trains?

Seen photos? Yes, some of them are obese.

What’s your point?

Oh, I guess some of them aren't hungry, then.

You think people aren't going hungry because of the term "food insecurity". Ridiculous!

The leading health problem among the poor in the US is obesity.

If it’s the same criminals committing the same crime shortly after being released, keeping them in jail will reduce the opportunity they have to commit the crime again, at least for as long as they remain in jail.

You're forgetting the cost of jailing them in the first place. Not only is there an upfront cost of $106k per year(assuming we're talking about CA)[1], that person is also not working(or paying taxes) or gaining any useful skills. What they're doing instead is hanging out in a population of other criminals and participating in a social order that incentivizes if not downright mandates behavior that in itself would be considered criminal in wider society. I don't think it's so far fetched to say that the cost society pays to incarcerate someone with the goal of preventing them from committing more crimes can exceed the cost of the crimes themselves. Deterrence is the only possible way to justify these costs(And prisons do have nonzero use as a deterrent), but the current prison situation makes it clear that prison's RoI growth has some seriously diminishing returns that started at a funding level far lower than the current one.

[1]https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost

I've absolutely heard this rhetoric about short jail terms before, though, about any number of crimes. Is there data to back this up?

I think the point was that the number of thefts made outside the prison by people who are in the prison is necessarily zero, unless they escaped. Do you need data to be convinced of this?

They're in prison until they aren't and at that point they may steal enough to make up for the stealing the imprisoning prevented.

The point of adding a 10s delay on incorrect password attempts isn’t to make it impossible to brute force passwords, it’s to slow an attacker from 600 tries per minute down to 6/min. This is enough of a deterrence to make brute forcing impractical.

If you have to wait 7 days between train robberies instead of 24 hours, that’s a big hit to the business model. Maybe enough to make it impractical.

Your analogy doesn't really help because they aren't just "delayed". Money is wasted on incarcerating them, they come in close contact with criminals, and it makes their ability to get a job, lower.

Prosecuting crime does not eliminate crime; it minimizes crime.

For the criminal justice system to deter crime, there has to be a reasonable chance of getting caught and punished, and the punishment must significantly exceed the benefit that obtained from the crime.

That's not what I've heard:

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/do-harsher-pu...

Some of this is really just common sense. I believe the following:

- If murder were not prosecuted, or punished by only a day in jail, murder rates would increase. It would effectively be legal.

- Changing the sentence on murder from 10 years to life, however, would be unlikely to have any marginal deterrent effect.

Stated more generally, I think many sentences in this country are horrifically long, and dramatically shortening them would not increase crime. But if you decrease them to a level where they are de minimis compared to the benefit of the crime, or just not prosecuted at all, I don’t need a study to tell me crime will increase. It is human nature.

Exactly! Beyond a certain threshold, increasing punishment severity has diminishing returns (or negative, if you count the fiscal and societal costs of incarceration).

I've heard incorrect folk wisdom parroted as if it were true, before, so I'll wait for the study.

Plenty of people claim they have a grasp on common sense, and many of them disagree.

Do you eat when you’re hungry and put on a raincoat outside when it’s raining, or do you wait for a study?

Hilarious that you bought up "eating when hungry" as an example of common sense considering all the discussion about that recently. Folk wisdom loses, again :) I think I will wait for the study.

> punishment

This makes the big assumption that people know or care about the punishment. Most people do, but plenty of people are desperate and just don't give a shit.

I think if you flip that thinking, there'd be people spreading the word that the prevention is minimal and the punishment not a serious deterrent. e.g., no one thinks "I wonder what happens if you're busted grabbing stuff out of a shipping container?" But if there's no punishment, word would spread fast. "Those guys have been doing it for weeks and no one cares. X got busted but they had to let him off light. They don't do anything about it!"

There's also literal evidence from the original article that these criminals know they won't be punished and can do it with impunity.

That seems likely, but that's existing criminals. Doesn't it make logical sense that lowering punishment enough will attract rational people who are not desperate to do crimes?

Recidivism for most crimes is high. Putting criminals in prison prevents them from committing more crimes.

I mean, no, there's lots of crimes you can commit in jail that can lead you to an even worse sentence. But also recidivism isn't simply some moral badness in a person, there's tons of factors that feed into it, including the community around the person being released, their ability to provide with a record, etc.

But does prison also cause significant other issues, leading to that recidivism?

And not putting criminals in jail allows them to commit more crimes.