Deterrence

Cugel
Posts: 232
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Deterrence

Postby Cugel » 12 Jul 2018, 8:46am

CUK is campaigning for changes in the law concerning various aspects of road safety, including not just redefinitions of legal offences but also (albeit to a lesser degree) the associated penalties. The Rule of Law society gains many advantages from it's procedures and institutions but perhaps one aspect that is least effective is the typical set of punishments supposedly acting as a deterrent to potential transgressors.

Our traditions of crime & punishment contain a mix of "the three Rs": retribution, reform, redemption. Or is it: retribution, revenge, recidivism? Or: ......

In the present cultural climate, revenge seems to be high on the list of the ingredients making up the punishment recipe. This introduces another R: recidivism. The current punishment of imprisonment seems to do nothing to reform a prisoner and offers very little retribution in the way of compensation to victims other than the satiation of their understandably itchy desire for revenge.

Many see the prospect of punishment as a deterrent, especially if the punishment might be the semi-torture of a prison incarceration among violent madmen with unpleasant desires for various horrific procedures. But in my experience, people committing crimes (especially the "everyday" crimes of motoring offences) do so with the belief that they will get away with it. In this mindset, potential incarceration is never considered and has no effect on their behaviour.

So, if pure revenge in the form of prison is not just ineffective at crime-prevention or criminal-reform but rather productive of recidivism and worse, what would be an effective deterrent to (amongst others) road traffic crimes?

I invite you to answer with your own notions, including (if you insist) a defence of prisons.

My own preference is for shaming, both in public and in private, of those with criminal tendencies. Most humans greatly dislike being hated. (Mind, there is always the Trumpish ilk of personality, who enjoys the notoriety of a certain kind of evil "freethinking").

In addition, exclusion from the consumer-producer glutton-fest would seem to be something many would find a deterrent - a potential loss of not just their four-wheeled tin merkin but other "essential" gew-gaws, fandangles and glittery dross.

Cugel

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 9749
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby mjr » 12 Jul 2018, 9:38am

Deterrents don't work beyond a certain point. There's some evidence that criminals tend to be those who ignore/discount the future http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/08/patience-and-crime/

With the young, who stereotypically think they're invincible and will live relatively forever, there's little deterrent effect http://freakonomics.com/2013/06/12/does ... deterrent/

Even the ultimate penalty doesn't seem to be a deterrent. http://freakonomics.com/2008/06/30/how- ... h-penalty/

There are many possible reasons, but I suspect people are either acting in the heat of the moment or think they won't get caught for one reason or another.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

pete75
Posts: 9111
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Deterrence

Postby pete75 » 12 Jul 2018, 10:02am

mjr wrote:There are many possible reasons, but I suspect people are either acting in the heat of the moment or think they won't get caught for one reason or another.


The only real deterrent is a high chance of being caught doing wrong. The punishment is irrelevant if the chances of being caught are minimal. If a criminal thinks they are highly likely to be caught committing a particular crime they won't do it.

Bez
Posts: 929
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Bez » 12 Jul 2018, 11:11am

TL;DR. Sorry.

But we should acknowledge that, given the recognised danger presented by the use of motor vehicles, that use is rightly licensed, and that licence depends on a certain level of evidence of competence.

Which means that from a criminal perspective our first response can be to neatly bypass the whole discussion of normal criminal sanctions and simply revoke that licence; either for a temporary period and/or indefinitely subject to further evidence of competence.

We currently do that only for the most serious of criminal driving offences, but we should do much more. There are good reasons (subjective moral ones and objective psychological ones) as to why imprisonment is inappropriate for many misdemeanours and, at the other end, fines are negligibly effective.

To make that work, we should stop viewing ignorance of those bans as mere driving misdemeanours and treat them as wilful criminal offences in direct contempt of the judicial system.

thirdcrank
Posts: 26208
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Deterrence

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Jul 2018, 11:18am

Bez wrote:TL;DR. ...


Over my head. :?

Bez
Posts: 929
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Bez » 12 Jul 2018, 11:18am

pete75 wrote:The only real deterrent is a high chance of being caught doing wrong. The punishment is irrelevant if the chances of being caught are minimal. If a criminal thinks they are highly likely to be caught committing a particular crime they won't do it.


Actually there's research which suggests that, for acts of minor dishonesty at least, this is not true. It'd be interesting to find out how faithfully this transfers to driving misdemeanours which are perceived (by the individuals committing them) to be minor.
Last edited by Bez on 12 Jul 2018, 11:28am, edited 1 time in total.

Bez
Posts: 929
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Bez » 12 Jul 2018, 11:19am

thirdcrank wrote:
Bez wrote:TL;DR. ...


Over my head. :?


Too long; didn't read.

(I realise that this is a legitimate response to many of my posts. As Pascal wrote, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. ;))

thirdcrank
Posts: 26208
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Deterrence

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Jul 2018, 11:22am

Bez wrote: ... Too long; didn't read.

(I realise that this is a legitimate response to many of my posts.)


Probably mine too, but hardly a foundation for a discussion. Anyway thanks for the prompt clarification.
=======================================================
PS We've had plenty of enforcement threads before.

brooksby
Posts: 196
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: Deterrence

Postby brooksby » 12 Jul 2018, 11:27am

Bez wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
Bez wrote:TL;DR. ...


Over my head. :?


Too long; didn't read.

(I realise that this is a legitimate response to many of my posts. As Pascal wrote, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. ;))


Trop longtemps; n'a pas lu :wink:

brooksby
Posts: 196
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: Deterrence

Postby brooksby » 12 Jul 2018, 11:31am

Jail-time is doesn't exactly reform, and its expensive, and you'd be locking Bob who was a dangerous and uninsured driver in with Stabber who took people apart with his bare hands, etc etc.

I think the problem with a driving ban is that it only works if it is enforced. And pretty much all traffic enforcement has been moved so far down the priority list that it barely exists any more...

Not sure of the answer - just thinking aloud... :|

Mistik-ka
Posts: 412
Joined: 5 Feb 2012, 10:01pm
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Deterrence

Postby Mistik-ka » 12 Jul 2018, 8:40pm

Cugel wrote:My own preference is for shaming, both in public and in private, of those with criminal tendencies. Most humans greatly dislike being hated.Cugel

Shaming may be an effective deterrent for some — it certainly has been for me :oops: — but I think it has limited application. I have spent time in a number of social settings where criminal acts are admired or viewed as a rite of passage, regardles of whether the individual was apprehended and punished or not.

brynpoeth
Posts: 5329
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Deterrence

Postby brynpoeth » 12 Jul 2018, 9:17pm

brooksby wrote:
Bez wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
Over my head. :?


Too long; didn't read.

(I realise that this is a legitimate response to many of my posts. As Pascal wrote, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. ;))


Trop longtemps; n'a pas lu :wink:

Does that mean:
Ich habe eine large Brief geschrieben, mir fehlte die Zeit, um kurz zu schreiben?
Sorry :wink:
I wrote a long letter because I did not have enough time to write a short one?
Alternative facts welcome
......
Cycling? Of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

brynpoeth
Posts: 5329
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Deterrence

Postby brynpoeth » 12 Jul 2018, 9:19pm

Mistik-ka wrote:
Cugel wrote:My own preference is for shaming, both in public and in private, of those with criminal tendencies. Most humans greatly dislike being hated.Cugel

Shaming may be an effective deterrent for some — it certainly has been for me :oops: — but I think it has limited application. I have spent time in a number of social settings where criminal acts are admired or viewed as a rite of passage, regardles of whether the individual was apprehended and punished or not.

Dare you go into detail? I thought it was like Lake Wobegon over there, nothing much happens, the women are strong and the men are handsome :wink:
Alternative facts welcome
......
Cycling? Of course, but it is far better on a Gillott

pete75
Posts: 9111
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Deterrence

Postby pete75 » 12 Jul 2018, 10:42pm

Bez wrote:
pete75 wrote:The only real deterrent is a high chance of being caught doing wrong. The punishment is irrelevant if the chances of being caught are minimal. If a criminal thinks they are highly likely to be caught committing a particular crime they won't do it.


Actually there's research which suggests that, for acts of minor dishonesty at least, this is not true. It'd be interesting to find out how faithfully this transfers to driving misdemeanours which are perceived (by the individuals committing them) to be minor.


You mena people will commit minor acts of dishonesty knowing are likely to be caught?

Mistik-ka
Posts: 412
Joined: 5 Feb 2012, 10:01pm
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Deterrence

Postby Mistik-ka » 13 Jul 2018, 1:59am

Status among teenaged boys in small prairie towns is often gained by doing stupid things in cars, successfully outrunning the local police in a pursuit down back roads, committing minor acts of vandalism, and of course circumventing the liquor laws … and not getting caught. (Believe me, as a teenaged boy my social status score was zero.) Fatal car crashes were distressingly common.

Working with young people in a "free school" in the slums of Halifax, Nova Scotia, I encountered a far more deprived and self-destructive segment of society, where court appearances and jail time bestowed a badge of manhood. No, none of the kids in the school went out of their way to get caught, but their appreciation of consequences was, shall we say, not well-developed. These kids had no access to cars unless they stole them. Drugs, knives, and occasionally guns took a dreadful toll.