Hacker News Reader

Comment by apta | Hacker News Reader

The way I see it, they're a tool, part of a bigger picture that aids in security and safety. The issue it seems is that there isn't a proper follow up once the perpetrator gets identified and caught. There doesn't seem to be strict enough punishment for people who get caught to deter them. Or you have ridiculous laws where the thief can sue the owner of the house they broke into because they got hurt or "excessive force" was used to contain them until the police arrive.

View on HN

The evidence is extremely weak that threat of punishment actually successfully deters crimes of opportunity: https://undark.org/2016/05/16/deterrence-punishments-dont-re...

Some premeditated crimes (e.g. first-degree murder, bribery) can be deterred by threat of punishment, but when people are making the snap-decision to commit a crime of opportunity, they aren't carefully weighing the risk vs reward.

Studies like this always seem to be confined to Western societies (and particularly the US). Other societies seem to be doing just fine with harsh punishments like the death penalty. There are other factors at play here, but having harsh punishments that are actually applied is one factor in the system. In other countries, serial rapists would be executed for instance. I'm not sure that's the case in the US.

Not that I'm recommending we go this route, but Singapore will literally beat you with a big stick, likely permanently handicapping you, for offenses as small as chewing gum. They have remarkably low crime.

Chewing gum is a fine. There’s a lot to be said about caning in Singapore but you’re not going to be caned for chewing gum.

Among developed countries, the US has one of the harshest "justice" systems.

It still has death sentences and the dubious record of an incarceration rate higher than any other country.

It's about how correctly applied those punishments are. Just because it has the death penalty and high incarceration rates doesn't mean that they're being used correctly. For instance, does a serial rapist or serial child molester get the death penalty? In other countries he would. Why do people who were convicted with 100% certainty get put on death row for very long periods of time? People like public shooters and so on. It's a flawed application of the system in the US.

A reasonable way to look at risk is the severity of the outcome multiplied by the probability it will occur. Your link seems to endorse that that kind of risk acts as a deterrent when sufficiently large.

If your point is that people (at least those who aren't scientists or statisticians) round small probabilities to zero, then I agree, and it's something that I think people need to be more aware of when considering deterrence or other behavior. However, I don't think you or the article made this point clearly. The article would be so much shorter and simpler if it was condensed down to that one observation.

It's quite reasonable to say that punishment only has an effect when it is clearly linked to an action, but that sounds like a completely different message than saying punishment doesn't work (implicitly assuming it almost never occurs).

>The way I see it, they're a tool, part of a bigger picture that aids in security and safety.

There's a particular rock in the Atlantic off the coast of Europe and East or Ireland that's been carpet bombed with CCTV cameras. Ask anyone who lives there and they'll tell you that they're still waiting for the reduction of petty crime the cameras were supposed to bring. There always seems to be plenty of money to fund more cameras and more surveillance but never any money to fund the Good Old Fashioned Police Work(TM) needed to follow up on all the crime those cameras see.

You're not negating what I wrote, there definitely needs to be a follow up once the perpetrators are identified, not to mention other approaches like funding the police. I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but they do seem to have something going there. Not to mention countries like Singapore, the UAE, etc. where there are harsh punishments, and much better safety overall compared to the US.

Again, it's a tool in the tool box, necessary but perhaps not sufficient.

The Office for National Statistics shows a continual fall in the long term rate of theft for the UK since 1995. From around 11k incidents per year to around 4K. A steady decrease.

Not to mention you can just cut the internet to disable it. I don’t see this preventing any, err, career criminals. You’d be just as effective putting up a fake camera on your porch, and you’d probably be on better terms with the neighbors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com