Baresark said:
DrOswald said:
Baresark said:
SonOfVoorhees said:
People that commit crime do so because, for them, the gain out ways the risk. For others the risk of being caught isnt worth the rewards of the crime. Unfortunately, depending on the law, crimes would increase.....for instance speeding, shop lifting etc An for people that commit crimes now, if there was no law then they would have a field day and crime would increase.
snip
That experiment with the taxi's proves nothing about risk/reward assessment in crimes. It demonstrates that the idea that people are fundamentally and totally dishonest at all times and are only waiting for the opportunity to not get caught false, but it does not prove that there is no risk/reward assessment in crime. It doesn't even begin to demonstrate that. And I know that at least some risk/reward assessment happens when crimes are committed because I have seen first hand the risk/reward assessment being made on multiple occasions.
No? That's weird because it demonstrates that when there is no risk and all reward, taxi drivers (at least) are completely honest and do not commit any dishonest act. You should re-read what I wrote, I think you may have misunderstood (or I mistyped something, totally happens sometimes). If there was a risk/reward assessment that determined whether or not they were going to steal from someone, then they would have overwhelmingly been dishonest, and none were at all. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the actual scientific idea of risk/reward assessment in crime. This idea states basically that the reason you don't rob every convenience store you pass is simply because the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. It presupposes that people are completely dishonest and the increase in risk is what keeps people honest, which is a completely false view of people.
I once knew a guy who wanted to go to a 21+ concert but who was only 20. He was considering trying to pass off as his slightly older brother and spent several hours with me hashing out a textbook example of a risk/reward assessment. I knew people who did drugs, I knew people who tried to buy beer, I knew people who I was able to talk out of doing very stupid things because I told them how risky it was. This would not have been possible if there was not risk/reward assessment going on. I have had people come to me and ask me just how risky it is to pirate things online and what kind of punishment is applicable if they get caught.
Don't tell me that "Risk/reward assessments do not occur when someone is committing any crime" because I have seen the risk/reward assessment actually happen on multiple occasions.
Now, if you had said that relying completely and totally on a risk/reward model for crime is incorrect I would have agreed. The problem is far more complex than that. But it would be equally foolish to completely throw out the idea of risk/reward assessment because it is an important piece of a much larger whole.
Also, you insistence that "there is literally no evidence" of the Rational Choice crime theory is demonstrably false. In fact, lets look at three examples:
1. Substantial reductions in aircraft hijackings in the 1970s achieved by baggage screening and other airport measures.
2. Reductions in thefts from parking lots due to surveillance.
3. Greatly reduced shoplifting and library books as a result of electronic merchandise tagging.
Or are you seriously going to argue that people didn't realize that hijacking aircraft was wrong until we started screening their baggage?
I can't reason with someone who has decided that their personal experience preempts any scientifically conducted studies. You're arguments are specious simply because you are putting causal relationships to things that you cannot verify as causal. You have to understand that the majority of crimes are NOT premeditated. The issue is really what people "feel" is honest. Most people who pirate music do not consider it a "crime" in the sense that they deserve jail time if they caught. Sure, they know they are doing something illegal, but if you ask them they will probably still label themselves as an honest human being who does not steal from other people. As I explained in my post, the further removed from something of fundamental value, the easier it is for someone to not think of it as a crime. When most people who want to download a movie actually do, they are not running risk/reward assessments to themselves each time. They have simply made a value judgement and they are recycling from their previous experience It doesn't matter if everyone you know came to you and asked the questions they have asked you about, it's still an insanely small sample of any population. That means that you are far more likely to get an extreme sample. That is actually the rule of small numbers.
But, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about it. You are making assumptions, I am talking about actual scientific research.
So am I. Those three examples, the hijacks, the parking lot muggings, and the shoplifting, are based on scientific research. Careful measurements were made for a control and then measurements were made after the change was enacted. The evidence suggests that there was a specific deterrent effect of the measures taken to catch criminals which indicates a risk reward assessment. Unless, like I said, you are seriously going to argue that people didn't realize mugging and shoplifting was wrong until someone put a camera up.
Edit: Best way to explain it is this: If crimes or any dishonest action was based on risk/reward, then crimes and overall dishonesty would be much higher. Honest people are honest, very few people are actual hardened criminals. That is the summation of all the evidence. Crimes exist independent of risk/reward calculations, overall. And by extension, so does honesty. Meaning that keeping people honest isn't about making laws. As a locksmith once said, locks keep honest people honest, but they won't stop criminals.
This assumes that if there is a risk/reward assessment going on then it is the only possible influence over if the crime is committed, which I specifically said was not the case and no one has ever put forth that theory because it is obviously false. If you would have read my post you would have noticed that I specifically said it is not the only factor. But it is a factor. Just because 99% of people will never even consider committing a certain crime does not mean that the 1% doesn't make a risk/reward analysis of the situation.
Edit2: Risk/reward assessment theory of crime is not what you are describing. You are saying that when an action is premeditated then there is risk/reward assessment. But that is not the same as crime on the spot, which does not involved risk reward. It's the same for software piracy. Or plane hijacking or car theft or shoplifting. Most of these things are not premeditated... well, I feel compelled to say that hijacking a plane is premeditated. No one is sitting around with weapons waiting for their plane, they get on and then decide they are going to hijack it. But that seems to be more the exception than the rule. Most crimes or dishonest acts are not premeditated.
3 things:
1. Yes, it is what I am describing. I read 3 different multipage summaries of the theory before making my post to make sure I understand it. The risk/reward assessment model, actually know as the Rational Choice crime theory, certainly applies to premeditated crime. But you did not specify only on the spot crimes, you just said "any crime." And this is what I have taken exception with. I will buy that a man, in the heat of the moment and full of rage, might shoot his wife without thinking about the consequences. I will not buy that a man just walks down the street and, in a moment of fancy without ever thinking about it before or even a cursory thought about the consequences or potential gains, steals a car or mugs a random passerby. At least, that can't be the case every single time.
2. How can piracy not be premeditated? It is something you have to plan to do. You have to learn how to do it, you have to install torrent software, you have to decide what to pirate, you have to go and search and find what you are pirating. You have to plan to do it. In fact, it cannot possibly be done without planning. That is what premeditated means. It was planned. For that matter, quite often muggings and shoplifting are planned, and therefore premeditated, crimes.
3. Even if the crime is on the spot there is often time for the criminal to think about the crime. This is why cameras are an effective crime deterrent, as I noted in my first post. The criminal, lets say a shoplifter, sees something they like and decides they don't want to pay for it. Are you seriously going to tell me that they will, without fail, grab the thing they want without even looking over their shoulder to see if anyone is watching? Because if they do that is a risk/reward assessment. They might not make a chart of pros and cons but even if it is just a snap judgement a risk reward assessment is happening. "I want this thing, lets look behind me, oh that camera is pointed strait at me, I guess I won't steal it." How is that not a risk/reward assessment?
The Rational Choice crime theory is not a general or complete model of criminal behavior and this is fully acknowledged by the proponents of the Rational Choice crime theory. This is where you seem to be tripping up.
