= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Your assumptions are not just unrealistic, they do not appear to be self-consistent, which is much worse.
"Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction." If you abolish punishment, you abolish crime, however silly it sounds. There is no longer a distinction between immoral and illegal. The "crime rate" would be trivially zero. The "moral offense" rate would be hard to calculate without restoring some gradation of immorality, otherwise being rude to a person has the same weight as killing them.
I see no way to create this gradation other than by assigning different punishment to different offenses, in which case we are back to where we started.
A more consistent model would be "what if there is a maximum level of punishment beyond which there is not further reduction in crime rates, and this level is entirely too low to the victim's liking?" When stated this way, the answer is obvious: most people would adjust their expectation of a just punishment to fit that prescribed by the law. This has happened over the ages in nearly every society already (the adjustment, not the punishment optimization), in one direction or another.
For example, capital punishment used to be dispensed rather freely not that long ago. On the other hand, swindling was not a crime until rather recently, and often still isn't. Societies adjust to what the law says, and change the law when there is enough support, however imperfectly.
Given this self-adjustment of expectations of a just punishment, all that remains from your question is "how to find the optimal level of punishment for a given offense?" A zero-punishment offense would be considered an immoral act, all the rest would be forms of infractions/civil offences/crimes.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Downvoted for groundless assumptions and for failing to google the basics. There are more, not fewer physical documents produced, because it is easier to produce them, the number of bank tellers has actually increased, etc.
Name three.
1 Maybe I should clarify: Are the tasks previously done by bank tellers becoming automated? Yes. The fact that the number bank tellers has increased does not invalidate my statement. If there were no internet banking or ATMs then increase would be much larger right? So its trivial to see that the number of bank tellers can increase at the same time as bank teller jobs are lost to automated systems.
2 I'll give you an extreme one. I am a few steps away of earning a degree in theoretical physics specializing in quantum information theory. Theoretical quantum information theory is nothing but symbol manipulation in a framework on existing theorems of linear algebra. With enough resources pretty much all of the research could be done by computers alone. Algorithms could in principle put mathematical statements together, other algorithms testing the meaningfulness of the output and so on.. but that a discussion interesting enough to have its own thread. I just mean that theoretical work is not immune to automation.
Organize all the known mathematics and physics of 1915 in a computer running the right algorithms, the ask it: 'what is gravity?' Would it output General theory of relativity? I think so.