= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FAWS comments on Crime and punishment - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (189)
Anything that increases anticipated punishment, but hasn't been in effect long enough to have noticeably increased past punishment will increase type 1 deterrence, but not type 2 deterrence. Assuming universally known conviction rates and punishments making further personal details about convicted criminals known to make their individual fates more memorable might increase type 2 deterrence, but shouldn't have any effect on type 1 deterrence.
In practice few if any criminals should respond to only one of these types (though perfectly rational criminals would only take type 1 into account).
I think your distinction between type 1 and type 2 is not the right distinction. The important distinction is whether the criminal is the type of criminal who could have been deterred or not.
I think you mean SilasBarta's distinction. I have no strong opinion on how useful making the distinction in this particular way is.