> It gives the illusion of security, but they would absolutely not deter a determined threat actor.
Sure. And the threat of jail/imprisonment doesn't deter determined murderer's. It doesn't mean we shouldn't put deterrents.
Sure. And the threat of jail/imprisonment doesn't deter determined murderer's. It doesn't mean we shouldn't put deterrents.
GP doesn't say we shouldn't, but rather that it's not good enough.
> The weak association between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates applies almost entirely to property crime.16 Research consistently shows that higher incarceration rates are not associated with lower violent crime rates.
It does make sense. If a person is committing a crime in the hopes of material gain, reducing that material gain by imposing a negative gain if they get caught should deter them.
It doesn't seem like a person committing a crime of passion would be using that sort calculus. And it turns out in this case intuition is right: the figures say they don't. Ergo the threat of jail has no effect on the number of murders committed.
What deterrents is one of the hardest problems society has ever grappled with. How do we stop antisocial behaviours? Prisons (a modern punishment) do not seem to work, for a multitude of complicated reasons. This is coming from someone who has been through the system.