Comment by saalweachter | Hacker News Reader

Comment by saalweachter | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Nit: disproportionate retaliation is a rational strategy against aggregate loss.

The classic example is, your neighboring tribe steals a goat. You could chase after them, but then there'd be a confrontation, and some of your people would probably get killed. It's not worth a life for a goat. But then next week, and the week after, and the week after that, another goat is stolen. Each week the same calculus holds: one goat is much less than one life. In the aggregate, though, you've lost dozens or hundreds of goats. Too many.

On the other hand, you can respond to the theft of a goat disproportionately. You can chase after the thieves, confront them, beat them, kill them. Some of your people will die, some of their people will die. Next week, they don't come back to steal a goat. A goat isn't worth one of them dying over, either. Your tribe has a reputation of "not to be messed with", and the thefts stop.

It may be the horrific underpinning of all types of warfare, from gang to nation-state, but it is pretty rational, and provides a solid reason to spend a thousand bucks prosecuting a 5-cent theft: it's not about punishing the 5-cent theft, it's about preventing the future aggregate theft of thousands of dollars.

Actually in studies about this topic, the "proportionality" or harshness of the sentence does little to nothing to deter the crimes (more than a nominal sentence). What does prevent crime is making the apprehension of a suspect guaranteed after a crime has been committed. In other words, even if the sentence is nominal, if the thief knows that he'll be caught for sure, he'll be less likely to commit the crime. If the thief knows there's a chance he won't be caught, he'll be more likely to commit the crime, even if the sentence is very harsh.

This is one of the reasons why there's movement to undo the mandatory minimum sentences and harsh sentencing trends that have arisen in the past 20 years - because it doesn't actually deter crime.

For this particular case, if the school had simply put up signs saying the outlets are monitored and you'll be fined for any misuse would have probably done the trick without resorting to actual police intervention.

I think you're probably right. Disproportionate response only makes sense if it actually prevents future crimes.

I would like to clarify the blurring of two disproportionate costs.

The first is the cost to the criminal. Assume for the sake of argument that in this case we're talking a trip to the police station, a $50 fine, and 10 hours of community service. Absurd for a $0.05 theft of electricity, but a limited sort of absurdity. The criminal is made to pay a disproportionate amount in restitution for his crime.

The second is the cost to the society. The cost of having a police man arrest someone for a $0.05 theft, jail him, take him to court, and supervise the community service. Hell, the cost to cash the $50 check for the fine is probably more than $0.05. The society pays a disproportionate amount to prevent a $0.05 crime.

These two separate costs have two separate objections. The first violates our inherent notions of fairness; the second raises the question of cost effectiveness.

While a rational strategy for defending a goat it does not apply for someone stealing a grape. There both food, but a two order of magnatude loss may be worth it a four order of magnatude loss is probably not.

Edit: Which is why fines are used for minor offences they dramaticly reduce the cost of enforcement. And really refilling an electric car is about the same cost to society (1-2$) as someone not paying a parking meter so the response should be vary similar.

Nope, not paying a parking meter has more of a social cost attached - you're keeping people wanting to pay for parking from a parking lot, forcing them to drive around more and lose time.

Certainly that's the rationale that the smarter prosecutors will eventually produce, after we're all bored of hearing about "the rule of law" from the same people who regularly do so much to undermine it. At some price level for electricity, that rationale would even make sense. However, it's far from clear that we're at that price level.

A parking lot is a public amenity. (Some lots are restricted to authorized people or even charge for use, but that's beside the point.) That amenity often includes anywhere from one to several dozen bright electric lights, that are on from dusk until some time after close of business, or even until morning. No one is charged for the kWh that lighting consumes, as that is understood to be part of the cost of operating a parking lot.

Or in this case you could divert the funds used in prosecution to secured covers for the outlets. Same outcome, no further use of the resource, with a reduced cost to everyone involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com