Hacker News Reader

Comment by Scea91 | Hacker News Reader

So basically your claim is that noone evaluates possible consequences when deciding whether or not to commit a crime?

It seems totally reasonable to me to expect that the higher the chance of negative consequences the less people commit the crime. Basically, police should lower the expected value.

View on HN

In US States that have the death penalty, have murders stopped? And more to the point, are they significantly lower % per capita?

Policy change that requires the manufacturer to install a part (that is a $~200 option in the USA) would have practically eliminated the car as being a "target" object.

Getting caught is always secondary in consideration to reward. If somebody is desperate enough, then it doesn't matter how risky it is.

Car theft isn't new. There being a punishment for stealing cars isn't new. What makes the Kia/Hyundia situation so significant is how EASY it is to do. Make it more hard to steal, and make that a mandatory policy.

The thieves will find other ways to steal cars, but it might stop the easy theft. More cops won't do that.

Large corporations are more likely to comply with a policy, so I think that would factor in to when and where policy is more effective than police, no?

What I don't understand about your point is that policy already makes stealing cars, murder, etc. illegal. What do you see as the difference between a policy that forces a car manufacturer to implement some technology that hinders theft vs. a policy that makes theft illegal?

I agree with you that the technology is probably beneficial on the whole and more effective than having police running around attempting to stop every car theft, but you're making this into a debate about policy vs. police, and I'm failing to make sense of how you distinguish one policy (regulating car manufacturing) from another (stealing cars is illegal).

My point is simple making it more difficult to steal by default is preferred to "hope we can catch them after the fact".

Another [very flawed] analogy; Let's say that all guns were banned. All guns disappear. Now 'easy' crimes involving guns disappear. If nobody has a gun, then somebody couldn't get shot.

If we move the burden further upstream and closer to the source then everybody downstream benefits. Make the manufacturer build "good locks" so that bic pens don't work.

I see your point, although you also need to consider the millions of vehicles already on the road. But let’s say we snap our fingers and equip every car with an immobilizer. Do people stop committing property crime? Or do they look elsewhere? Do I also need metal bars on my windows? Steel doors? Should I avoid carrying valuables on the street? Do I need to buy a Cybertruck with reinforced windows in case somebody holds me up with a sledgehammer at a traffic light? Should I just avoid traveling without a security detail? At some point, deterrents seem more effective against individual actors in creating the society I want to live in.

It's a straw man argument that the implementation of a punishment will eliminate the crime. The goal is to act as a deterrent. Safe countries like the Gulf States have the death penalty, have strong security, and it works quite well there.

The US has many issues that are independent of the penalties.

It's pretty clear that while some people will ignore deterrents, the lack of a credible deterrent causes people who would otherwise not commit crimes to begin to do so, hence high rates of smash & grabs and shoplifting in SF.

You're basically supposing a supply-and-demand curve (threat of punishment lowers demand) for crimes but rejecting the notion that the easily-hackable Kias aren't increasing supply?

can't they just hide an air tag deep inside the car in random locations so you'd have to disassemble the whole car to find it, and then there could be more than one, who knows? Air tags are like under 20 bucks probably a lot less if you're a big car manufacturer who can source them directly from China

You're describing judicial punishment such as incarceration, not policing. Police do bust crime rings, given the resources and intel they have.

I actually agree that consequences can be an effective deterrent. Usually the naysayers share examples of recidivism to contradict this, not first-time offense. Seems kind of obvious and non-controversial that repeat offenders would not be deterred by possibility of jail once they're in that world and have nothing to lose. One need only look at all of east Asia to get a sense that harsh punishment works, it's just that you then have to deal with the other pitfalls... such as harsh punishment being applied in areas you don't want.

Even if you do increase prison time, it would have to represent a worse enough fate than what would-be criminals are living that they would wager differently. If crime scales with poverty, it's because poverty sucks. Jail sucks, but it tends to be a revolving door.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com