I've been hearing the "probability of being caught, not severity of punishment" result cited for many years now, and I wonder whether you know whether there are multiple confirmations of this plausible observation. I have incorporated this result into my own policy preferences, and I would certainly like to know how robust it is.
She cites DNA databases' deterrent effect as the most clean illustration, and then goes through some messier examples (like probation supervision) where there's some discretion involved and so it's harder to tease out the effects. The section concludes:
"All told, the literature provides strong support for the hypothesis that increasing p [probability of punishment] can encourage desistance from crime. However, many programs that increase p also change other parameters, and these could counteract any bene cial e ects. In addition, changing p is likely to be more e ective for some groups than others, and we do not yet understand heterogeneity by o ender or crime type."
* Following the Vox link ("I have some quibbles with it"), I briefly thought you were confessing that "Ben" was a pseudonym covering your true identity: German Lopez.
* Consider this another vote for "Range". As a former English Literature PhD candidate who's been working as a software engineer for a few decades, it flatters my life choices. But it also makes very good arguments, and the story of the Ospedale della Pietà is quite something.
I may be due for a re-read since I bring up the book so often. And no confession there, I'm not productive enough of a writer to be juggling both handles.
I've been hearing the "probability of being caught, not severity of punishment" result cited for many years now, and I wonder whether you know whether there are multiple confirmations of this plausible observation. I have incorporated this result into my own policy preferences, and I would certainly like to know how robust it is.
I haven't gone deep and read all the papers myself but I deeply trust both Alex Tabarrok (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/09/what-was-gary-beckers-biggest-mistake.html) and Jennifer Doleac here. Doleac explores this in this review paper (https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Doleac_Desistance_Feb2019.pdf) under Section 4: "Change the probability of punishment."
She cites DNA databases' deterrent effect as the most clean illustration, and then goes through some messier examples (like probation supervision) where there's some discretion involved and so it's harder to tease out the effects. The section concludes:
"All told, the literature provides strong support for the hypothesis that increasing p [probability of punishment] can encourage desistance from crime. However, many programs that increase p also change other parameters, and these could counteract any bene cial e ects. In addition, changing p is likely to be more e ective for some groups than others, and we do not yet understand heterogeneity by o ender or crime type."
Quite persuasive, I updated. Two other notes:
* Following the Vox link ("I have some quibbles with it"), I briefly thought you were confessing that "Ben" was a pseudonym covering your true identity: German Lopez.
* Consider this another vote for "Range". As a former English Literature PhD candidate who's been working as a software engineer for a few decades, it flatters my life choices. But it also makes very good arguments, and the story of the Ospedale della Pietà is quite something.
I may be due for a re-read since I bring up the book so often. And no confession there, I'm not productive enough of a writer to be juggling both handles.
Not just prison abolitionists, anyone wanting more cost effective crime control.