*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I wonder what JKDS' thoughts are on this idea:

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

so, ultimately, the deep truth which the public at large doesn't understand is this:

Laws are not to prevent all crimes.
No system of law will result in a world (or neighborhood) without crimes.

[BananaStand]

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

My grandfather used to say "locks are for honest people"

[wufwugy]

My grandfather used to say "locks are for honest people"

A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."

[Savy]

A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."

Because there were enough targets that were easier to deal with. I'm not sure it follows that if everything had an alarm he wouldn't bother.

[wufwugy]

Because there were enough targets that were easier to deal with. I'm not sure it follows that if everything had an alarm he wouldn't bother.

That would cause the audio system thieves with insufficient marginal benefit of thieving to leave the market.

[JKDS]

A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."

Standard.

But it's a different kind of crime. On the one hand, you have stealing for monetary gain. On the other you have killing for fun or out of hurt or illness.

[wufwugy]

Standard.

But it's a different kind of crime. On the one hand, you have stealing for monetary gain. On the other you have killing for fun or out of hurt or illness.

In economics, they are both thought of in terms of utility (preferences). It can be thought of like how stealing for a particular monetary gain may benefit somebody by 30 utility while killing for fun may benefit him by 35 utility, which means he will choose to kill for fun since it better suits his preferences.

[JKDS]

In economics, they are both thought of in terms of utility (preferences). It can be thought of like how stealing for a particular monetary gain may benefit somebody by 30 utility while killing for fun may benefit him by 35 utility, which means he will choose to kill for fun since it better suits his preferences.

What of the person who kills for sport, and enjoys the challenge of it all? You're trying to say "ppl with guns deters other ppl with guns", but that only works with ordinary people...if it works at all. People willing to massacre Innocents are not ordinary. Their motives are different from ours.

Burglars tend to fit your theory. I live in an area with lots of snowbirds, aka travellers who visit during the winter months. Their homes get burglarized in the summer, because they arnt here to defend them. Clear case of opportunity...but it's because the success of a burglar depends on maximizing income, and minimizing getting caught. The only examples of deterrence working, that I know of, come from burglaries. (Gun laws, actually. By increasing the felony and punishment if a gun was involved, burglars carried guns less often)

That's not the case with other crimes. People are freaking weird, and do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. If a kid really wanted to shoot up his school, he's gonna try. Metal detectors be damned

[wufwugy]

What of the person who kills for sport, and enjoys the challenge of it all? You're trying to say "ppl with guns deters other ppl with guns", but that only works with ordinary people...if it works at all. People willing to massacre Innocents are not ordinary. Their motives are different from ours.

Using the usage "massacre", how do they massacre those who can defend themselves? I ask this because I think the frame you are using assumes a type of preference that can be deterred. If a person is looking to massacre and there is sufficient reason for him to believe he won't be successful at massacre, he is deterred. However, if you are positing that somebody wishes to kill regardless of probability of success of outcome, then yeah they can't really be incentivized against it*. Though the casualties can be kept minimal through other means.

If a kid really wanted to shoot up his school, he's gonna try. Metal detectors be damned

The metal detectors deter the kid who wants to shoot up his school marginally.** Though it doesn't deter the kid who has sufficient desire and capability to bypass the metal detectors.

*In economics, this would be somebody sufficiently crazy that they don't know their own preferences or that their preference is to have low success at killing.

**This means that a kid who desires and is capable just enough to shoot up a school when there is no metal detector, yet is deterred when there is. Not all killers fall under this type of category, but some do. Also, everybody falls under a "marginal" category; there are just differences in what is marginally beneficial to each person.

[wufwugy]

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

What do you mean by unscrupulous?

Implicit from the principles we're taught in economics courses is that the only type of person that could be unaffected by outcomes are the sufficiently mentally insane such that they can't even know their preferences.

[JKDS]

I wonder what JKDS' thoughts are on this idea:

Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.

so, ultimately, the deep truth which the public at large doesn't understand is this:

Laws are not to prevent all crimes.
No system of law will result in a world (or neighborhood) without crimes.

Criminal laws punish crime. That's their clear intent and purpose. It's hoped that they also have some deterrent effect, but the end result is punishment.