More people will think like this if there is a large body of stories involving great criminals with an unlikely frequency of minor harms and inconveniences in their past.
In this hypothetical society, how would/should you react if you were the target of an unlikely frequency of minor harms?
Consider Newcomb's Problem with transparent boxes. Even if you see that box B is empty, you should still one-box. For the same reason, even if you're getting punished, you should still not become a criminal - and not out of moral concerns but for your own benefit.
Here's an edited version of a puzzle from the book "Chuck Klosterman four" by Chuck Klosterman.
When should you punish someone for a crime they will commit in the future? Discuss.