I don't know enough to take a position on this issue one way or another, but I think it should be pointed out that expensive jail time for a few people could serve as a deterrent that results in enough increased fare revenue to offset the cost.
1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions
And to a lesser extent, this ignores the subset of circumstances where people forget to pay, actually do pay but the payment gets lost, or can't afford to pay but need to get places.
This is why 3-strike rules are abject failures (life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza?). Crime and punishment are enormously complicated and the "obvious" solutions almost never actually work.
Just pay for your ticket or walk.
Is it worth it to prosecute petty thefts for less than $100? If not, then we are giving the green light to that kind of crime. What incentive would you have to run a small business selling things if the state won't enforce the law?
> This line of thinking has two serious problem: it assumes that people 1) Actually intentionally break the law as a choice and 2) Actually think about the consequences of their actions
I lived in New York City, and saw the people who tried that in Bushwick. I actually agree that there are sadly many adults who completely dysfunctional. But that does not mean that we should just abandon our laws. Is it not a much bigger problem that we have people who simply can not help but break the law?
Small businesses exist even in places with no laws. Not saying it is a good idea to not have laws, or not enforce them, but it isn't like EVERYTHING ceases to work when laws aren't enforced.
I also don't think the effect is incalculable. We have lots of examples of places where the government collapses and there is no longer any enforcement of the law. We could certainly research the effect his has on the economy.
I am in no way arguing that we should abandon laws or stop enforcing petty crime, just saying it isn't quite that simple.
Only because other power structures emerge with their own rules. I think I’ll take laws over "lawlessness".
Rational deterrence theory and associated studies generally hold that the scale of deterrence means very little if it isn't reliably put into use.
That is to say, picking out a few unlucky rule violators and inflicting tremendous punishments on them has very little effect, while reliably inflicting minor punishments on most people who violate the rules has a much more noticeable effect on compliance.
(Estimates suggest wage theft and shoplifting both cost the US economy ~$40 billion/year. But one of these crimes results in virtually zero jail time.)
What is behind the US love affair with jail? It's perverse.