>>They think they can get away with it. What deters crime is not severity of punishment but a high probability of capture. That's actually where T-America has tightened the net. They can afford to be gentler with criminals because the catch rate is higher. It discourages misbehavior rather well. Thing is, some idiot always thinks he is the exception to the rule.<<
Well, the reason punishment doesn't work well (according to various studies) is indeed the fact that they don't expect to get caught. So yes, higher probability of getting caught does mean more folks will decide breaking the law is a bad idea.
The big problem is that many folks who break the law have poor risk assessment skills (a trait found in humans, especially males, well into the twenties).
Another trait that that's problematic is being bad at linking behavior to consequences. Or not *thinking* about consequences.
My kid brother had a bad case of that. As an example, he was taking meds that mom usually put in the sandwiches in his lunch.
He'd decide to not eat them. And then not think to dispose of the uneaten sandwich until he was *home*. He'd dump it in the garbage can on the way into the house. And mom would see it there when she took out the garbage and then she'd give him hell about not eating it.
This occurred *repeatedly*.
Me, I'd have dumped it at school, or more likely, on the almost 2 mile walk home.
Folks with either set of traits (or gods help us *both*) are going to break laws regardless.
The good news is that a lot will get caught at the petty crime level and dealt with one way or another. Jailed, treated, or recruited by someone who can keep them in line.
A lot won't survive to adulthood or not long into it.
The ones who make it thru those filters are going to cause a lot of trouble. Fortunately, the same reasons they cause trouble will prevent them from getting very high up the ladder. Those traits are just *not* suited to doing anything organized.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2017-05-15 07:30 pm (UTC)Well, the reason punishment doesn't work well (according to various studies) is indeed the fact that they don't expect to get caught. So yes, higher probability of getting caught does mean more folks will decide breaking the law is a bad idea.
The big problem is that many folks who break the law have poor risk assessment skills (a trait found in humans, especially males, well into the twenties).
Another trait that that's problematic is being bad at linking behavior to consequences. Or not *thinking* about consequences.
My kid brother had a bad case of that. As an example, he was taking meds that mom usually put in the sandwiches in his lunch.
He'd decide to not eat them. And then not think to dispose of the uneaten sandwich until he was *home*. He'd dump it in the garbage can on the way into the house. And mom would see it there when she took out the garbage and then she'd give him hell about not eating it.
This occurred *repeatedly*.
Me, I'd have dumped it at school, or more likely, on the almost 2 mile walk home.
Folks with either set of traits (or gods help us *both*) are going to break laws regardless.
The good news is that a lot will get caught at the petty crime level and dealt with one way or another. Jailed, treated, or recruited by someone who can keep them in line.
A lot won't survive to adulthood or not long into it.
The ones who make it thru those filters are going to cause a lot of trouble. Fortunately, the same reasons they cause trouble will prevent them from getting very high up the ladder. Those traits are just *not* suited to doing anything organized.