Mercy has long been a legitimate legal system. Judges are often given a significant amount of time to decide the punishment for crimes (in the case of mandatory minimum or “strikes” laws). Alienated situations can lead to lower punishment for some criminals than other criminals who commit certain crimes.
But some claim that mercy is weak. They do not want mercy for at least a specific crime. For example, it is called a “strong” politician. The list of crimes with weak mercy such as illegal immigration, children, murder, rape, rebellion, drug deals, and prostitution is long and variable. The idea is to significantly increase the punishment and reduce the crime (including the death penalty). The empirical evidence of suppression is mixed and may not be resolved soon.
But the overall influence is important, but what about the mix of crime? Even if the total crime rate falls, can a strong crime bill is mixed for more violent crimes? Economic thinking gives us a reason to think so.
Let’s assume that criminals are economically reasonable. In other words, if the limit of crime exceeds the limit of the estimation, the crime will perform a crime. The cost of the crime will be the expected punishment later, and the limit benefits are all benefits from criminals when they commit crimes. The expected punishment is likely to take the time to be punished. By this assumption, we can see that the position of a difficult crime can stop a minor crime. For example, if a punishment for stealing $ 100 is a fine of $ 10,000, even a 1.1%chance will interfere with reasonable criminals: Limit = $ 100. Limit costs = 0.011*$ 10,000 = $ 110. $ 110 exceeds $ 100, so reasonable criminals will not commit crimes. Will. At 1%, criminals are indifferent between committing crimes.
If the criminal acts and caught, you face the choice. Surrender, fined, resist, and receive heavier sentences. For reasonable criminals, the cost of surrender is lower than the arrest cost. He will surrender.
But let’s change the scenario and have a very difficult policy. Let’s assume that the legislature is an order that all crimes can be punished by death to fight crime. You may think that such a policy will stop crime. Eventually, the cost of the margin has increased dramatically. But I must claim. It will change the mix of crime into violent crime. Reduces Violent crime costs with low crime.
Take a look at criminals aiming to steal $ 100. He tries to commit a robber, but is caught by the police. The criminal is now faced with a choice. He can resist arrest (eg, a police officer). If he resists, let’s assume that he has a 10%chance of escaping. It is reasonable to resist the arrest according to the difficult crime policy in this hypothesis. Let’s see why:
Options 1: Submit to arrest
Limit benefits: No
Limit cost: 100% death potential
Result: 100% death potential
Option 2: Arrests of Resistance
Limit benefits: 10% possibility of escape
Limit cost: No
Result: 90% of death potential
Option 2 is a better option for criminals here. In the first option he will die. IFS, Ands or Buts. In the second option he has at least a slight survival. The cost of resistance to the surrender was reduced compared to the crime policy. When he surrenders, he does not have a limit for criminals. Thus, paradoxically, a strong crime policy can encourage violent crimes by reducing relative costs.
Therefore, there are examples of mercy from an economic point of view. Mercy lower the cost of surrender compared to resistance, encouraging more criminals to surrender peacefully. On the contrary, the strong criminal policy system increases the cost of surrender compared to resistance. The poor people detected and caught are destiny. The way out is now a cheaper option.
Policy for crime policies can reduce the total number of crimes committed. In margin, committing minor crimes are cheaper than that of not crime. But once a crime is committed, selective aesthetics change to encourage more violent behavior. Mercy policies can lead to more crimes in total, but mixing will be less violent because the options to resist or commit more violent crimes are more expensive. Mercy is a good thing in an economic point of view. Therefore, we remain in the following questions: Is it better to have a small number of violent crimes or a large number of minor crimes?
PS, there is a Japanese animation that deals with these problems. Psycho pass. The basic conspiracy is that the government system judges people’s “crime coefficients” or the possibility of committing crime. They are arrested or if the crime coefficients are fully high, they are executed without trial. In the first episode, people who do not have a criminal record are ordered to be arrested because they are determined to have a high crime coefficient. The man decides to realize this, kidnapping and raping a woman. In this case, the system designed to reduce crime has eventually increased.
