News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by efitz on Monday January 17, 2022 @01:08AM (#29963808)
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.

Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by tomlockwood on Monday January 17, 2022 @01:23AM (#29963886)
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by berberous on Monday January 17, 2022 @01:40AM (#29963955)
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.

Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by efitz on Monday January 17, 2022 @10:19AM (#29967374)
Exactly! Beyond a certain threshold, increasing punishment severity has diminishing returns (or negative, if you count the fiscal and societal costs of incarceration).
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by tomlockwood on Monday January 17, 2022 @02:09AM (#29964113)
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.

Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by efitz on Monday January 17, 2022 @10:20AM (#29967391)
Do you eat when you’re hungry and put on a raincoat outside when it’s raining, or do you wait for a study?
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by tomlockwood on Monday January 17, 2022 @05:05PM (#29972202)
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.
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by svnpenn on Monday January 17, 2022 @01:22AM (#29963880)
> 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.

Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by prawn on Monday January 17, 2022 @02:16AM (#29964155)
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!"
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by creato on Monday January 17, 2022 @02:29AM (#29964220)
There's also literal evidence from the original article that these criminals know they won't be punished and can do it with impunity.
Re:Union Pacific Addresses LA Cargo Thefts; Problem Requires... by vba616 on Monday January 17, 2022 @02:47AM (#29964322)
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?