Motorcycle loving crook.

[FJRider]

... or worse yet, a Harley

No chance of a fast getaway then ...

[Swoop]

Presumably this bike thief is a part of the government's recent "fuck, the recidivism rate is too hard to fix - let's get rid of trying to reduce it" announcement?

Go directly to jail, do not collect $200-.

[scumdog]

You're such a charmer.

My comment was in reply to you writing "....he seems to get caught a lot" because research has shown clearly that the chance of being caught is a much more powerful deterrent.

But not for that light-fingered loser it seems...

[Zedder]

But not for that light-fingered loser it seems...

Agreed, he certainly didn't get the message at all.

[Akzle]

What do you suggest?

vote akzle .

[rastuscat]

Only knuckle dragging idiots still believe prison is effective as a deterrent.

The only deterrent is that it stops crime while he's banged up. Unless it's crime against other inmates.

Once he's out, it's all on again.

[rastuscat]

vote akzle .

Azkil for King.

***king.

[Zedder]

The only deterrent is that it stops crime while he's banged up. Unless it's crime against other inmates.

Once he's out, it's all on again.

The short version of how deterrence is meant to work:https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

[RDJ]

The short version of how deterrence is meant to work:https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

That is an interesting link with a thoughtfully-presented argument. Nevertheless, I think it largely ignores one of the fundamental reasons for imprisonment; the visibility of punishment for the benefit of the the injured party as well as the wider community. We hear a lot of gabble about victimless crimes; but people usually end up in prison for crimes where there are very specific well-defined and much-harmed victims. An increased likelihood of the criminal being apprehended doesn't help the victim get closure. A sentence of 10 years in prison does help the victim in that regard; it also - to state the bleeding obvious - stops the criminal from reoffending for the period of incarceration.

Perhaps we should look at strategies to age criminals quickly to age 35? The study comments "But that incapacitation is a costly way to deter future crimes by aging individuals who already are less likely to commit those crimes by virtue of age." One could equally point out that "failing to incarcerate those individuals to age them, and leaving them free to commit more crimes while they are young and energetic, is even more costly to their victims and the community." And in terms of cost, a good old-fashioned road-gang, sack-sewing and rock-breaking regime would burn off some of that energy and provide some Return On Investment.

Unfortunately, the study simply tells us we shouldn't send people to prison as it does not effectively deter them. It doesn't tell us what we should do.

And lastly, it falls into the usual trap that the death penalty doesn't deter. It does; an executed murderer doesn't kill again. That murderer is effectively and 100% deterred.

[RDJ]

The only deterrent is that it stops crime while he's banged up. Unless it's crime against other inmates.

Once he's out, it's all on again.

GPS. Track him for the duration of his sentence (since he is usually on parole when released early) and have the computer overlay his GPS tracks with crime scenes / reports.

[5150]

In some less civilized countries punishment for crime is marriage. Should find him a nice whole lot of Rosie

[Akzle]

That is an interesting link with a thoughtfully-presented argument. Nevertheless, I think it largely ignores one of the fundamental reasons for imprisonment; the visibility of punishment for the benefit of the the injured party as well as the wider community. We hear a lot of gabble about victimless crimes; but people usually end up in prison for crimes where there are very specific well-defined and much-harmed victims. An increased likelihood of the criminal being apprehended doesn't help the victim get closure. A sentence of 10 years in prison does help the victim in that regard; it also - to state the bleeding obvious - stops the criminal from reoffending for the period of incarceration.

Perhaps we should look at strategies to age criminals quickly to age 35? The study comments "But that incapacitation is a costly way to deter future crimes by aging individuals who already are less likely to commit those crimes by virtue of age." One could equally point out that "failing to incarcerate those individuals to age them, and leaving them free to commit more crimes while they are young and energetic, is even more costly to their victims and the community." And in terms of cost, a good old-fashioned road-gang, sack-sewing and rock-breaking regime would burn off some of that energy and provide some Return On Investment.

Unfortunately, the study simply tells us we shouldn't send people to prison as it does not effectively deter them. It doesn't tell us what we should do.

And lastly, it falls into the usual trap that the death penalty doesn't deter. It does; an executed murderer doesn't kill again. That murderer is effectively and 100% deterred.

vote akzle .

[Zedder]

That is an interesting link with a thoughtfully-presented argument. Nevertheless, I think it largely ignores one of the fundamental reasons for imprisonment; the visibility of punishment for the benefit of the the injured party as well as the wider community. We hear a lot of gabble about victimless crimes; but people usually end up in prison for crimes where there are very specific well-defined and much-harmed victims. An increased likelihood of the criminal being apprehended doesn't help the victim get closure. A sentence of 10 years in prison does help the victim in that regard; it also - to state the bleeding obvious - stops the criminal from reoffending for the period of incarceration.

Perhaps we should look at strategies to age criminals quickly to age 35? The study comments "But that incapacitation is a costly way to deter future crimes by aging individuals who already are less likely to commit those crimes by virtue of age." One could equally point out that "failing to incarcerate those individuals to age them, and leaving them free to commit more crimes while they are young and energetic, is even more costly to their victims and the community." And in terms of cost, a good old-fashioned road-gang, sack-sewing and rock-breaking regime would burn off some of that energy and provide some Return On Investment.

Unfortunately, the study simply tells us we shouldn't send people to prison as it does not effectively deter them. It doesn't tell us what we should do.

And lastly, it falls into the usual trap that the death penalty doesn't deter. It does; an executed murderer doesn't kill again. That murderer is effectively and 100% deterred.

The linked topic is entitled "Five things about deterrence", it delivers on that. Your assessment is like finding a topic on road tyres and then commenting on the fact it doesn't provide discussion on track tyres and all other facets thereof.