I don't believe in effective simple means of crime reduction. But the world seems to be riddled with believers.
Let's state some simple facts:
1. Some crimes are committed under the influence of either alcohol or narcotics.
2. Some criminals are mentally ill.
3. There is such thing as kleptomania.
4. There is such thing as crime of passion.
5. And many more. :-) The point is that there's a variety of motives for committing a crime and it seem impossible to kill all these birds with one stone.
There's only a very small part of the population that actually calculates the risk/gain tradeoff and decides whether to be a good citizen or maybe go rouge. And these are white collar crimes anyway.
Most just do their stuff, and worry about consequences later, if ever. Most just hope to never get caught. Those who calculate the risk/gain tradeoff decides rather how to commit a crime without being caught, not whether to do it at all. Flipping burgers at McDonald's is not an option for most of them. It's rather get rich or die trying.
I propose two arguments against simple brute-force tactics:
1. China holds a word record in capital punishment. Yet, their criminal stats still suck. If brutalizing and killing criminals would be really effective, they should have one of safest communities in the world. Obviously it's not even close.
2. During WW2 at Poland you could get killed without any trial for hiding a Jew or even helping in the process. People hid them anyway.
So if even the most violent regimes couldn't enforce their laws by brute force, how it's possible in the democratic country?
No comments:
Post a Comment