Do penalties keep people from committing crimes?

Question

Do Penalties Keep People from Committing Crimes?

---

I'm very skeptical about the statement that penalties prevent people from committing crimes. There are obviously no facts to back this up (or are there?).

I often hear though that it's better not to do things that are against the law (the institute) because you could end up in jail. But in many cases crimes are committed, with or without a thought spent on ensuing penalties.

The prisons often haven't enough place to put the people away who are convicted of whatever crime (stealing, robbing, rape, war crimes, political "crimes", etc.). Especially in the U.S.A. ("thanks" to former President Clinton), a huge number of people are locked up for the tiniest offense.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

So, people do commit crimes. Preconceived or due to circumstances. Maybe it can even be said that due to the punishments people commit crimes in most intractable ways, if preconceived.

All of this is the reason for my skepticism. Is my skepticism "justified"?

I edit because I read this question: Is there any moral reasoning behind punishment?

Is there a difference between these two questions? If the punishment doesn't help is there a reason to ask about a moral system on which you base judgement?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_%28penology%29
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice

Answer 1

I think it depends on the crime and the risk/reward calculation would-be criminals make. Will the benefits from committing this crime outweigh the risk of punishment?

Some crimes can clearly be prevented by the law, since as we have recently seen, weak law enforcement can lead to increased crime. NYC disbanded an anti-crime unit in June, and almost immediately shootings skyrocketed.

In 2014, California passed Proposition 47 that, among other things, made theft below $950 a misdemeanor. This made it exceedingly unlikely police would follow up on it; they're too busy dealing with felonies. As a result, some businesses have seen shoplifting rates increase dramatically.

Others, the risk of punishment just changes how they're executed. A determined criminal will just change his tactics to avoid punishment, rather than abandon the plot entirely. For example instead of shooting his wife, a disgruntled husband out for the insurance money will make it look like an accident.

Last, remember these risk/reward calculations don't have to make sense to you, the calm rational Stack Overflow user, they have to make sense to the emotional, short-sighted misanthrope. You and I wouldn't shoot someone over some petty dispute, but we're good at risk/reward arithmetic.

Answer 2

If there is no law against an act, it's not a crime. So in fact, the law is the only thing that makes it possible to commit crime.

If the question is whether the law prevents certain acts (e.g. murder, theft), leaving aside how to define these acts that doesn't itself rely on some kind of normative law, it's hard to see how the existence itself of a law would provide an incentive to break it.

Since you complain about people who "are locked up for the tiniest offense" it seems that the question really is: Does strict law enforcement prevent crime?

In sociology of crime, the labeling theory holds that the strict enforcement of law can "label" people as criminals who would otherwise live normative lives. Because they were labeled as criminals, they continue to act as criminals. Thus the strict enforcement of law can cause even more crime by labeling more people as criminals.

On the other hand, the broken windows theory posits that visibility of crime leads to more crimes being broken. So if the law isn't enforced in the minor cases, more people see the law broken, which influences them as well to commit even more serious crimes. According to this theory, strict enforcement of law is necessary to prevent even greater crimes from being committed, and so law enforcement does prevent crime.

Answer 3

"for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal countries, whether rich or poor."

From 'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better'

"63% of violent crimes worldwide involves the use of alcohol"

From Alcohol-Related Violence. Interestingly inequality correlates strongly with rates of violent crime, but not with rates of property crime, pointing to human sensitivity to status issues and social mobility, having consequences for criminality.

Peer groups are important, especially for youth crime. I would argue that local community reaction to a given crime is likely the biggest factor in shaping behaviour. As attitudes to sex crimes, domestic violence, and race crimes like lynching have changed, so have the prevalence. Tax fraud and insider trading are looked on in some communities as just part of business - although penalties like disbarring from executive roles, and of lawyers from practicing law, may do more than other criminal penalties. Perhaps the biggest consequence of declaring bankruptcy is being restricted from setting up & running most kinds of businesses.

The death penalty is proven a poor deterrent against what are typically impulsive crimes of violence. There is a very strong link between traumatic head injuries and becoming a murderer.