punishment or rate of punishment as crime deterant?
Ahhh, I love summer. Well, I hate the incredibly high heat, the hot stale air, the feel of sweat on your back and legs forming and making your clothes stick to your body uncomfortably, but I do really enjoy walking around town seeing all the ladies in their low cut blouses and high cut skirts to beat the heat. Yep, summer is a great time of year. So, out and about was I and came across two things that made me think while I walked, as well as enjoying the natural beauty that us Canucks have walking around.
First was when I walked in to do some shopping at a mall. I had previously been to the library and gotten a few movies (gotta love it, $12/year membership and free movies and CDs all year round, and if the movies are in one of the many branches around the city, I just put a hold on it and they will actually deliver it to the library closest to me.) from them and had them in my backpack. So I walked into the store in the mall and sure enough those wonderful beeping devices went off screaming "We are sorry, but there the sales clerk has failed to remove the tags on your items. Please return to the nearest clerk for inspection". Of course, as I heard this I was expecting security officers to jump from the ceiling, drawing fully automatic weapons, ready to open fire on the criminal in their midst. I stood there....waiting...nothing. So I went about my shopping thinking that these attackers in the shadows saw that I was entering and not exiting and therefore I had no merchandise yet. I did my looking around, didn't find what I needed so I went to the customer service counter to let them know that I will beep. I told the ladies at the counter "I have been to the library, I have a few DVDs and CDs in my bag, I am going to beep as I go out", and they just say "don't worry. If you beeped coming in, you will beep going out". Sure enough, I beeped going out.
Now, what got me thinking is that not only did I get no security running up to me as I walked out beeping, but when I told the ladies I was going to beep going out of the store, they didnt ask to see inside my bag. I mean, I could have grabbed something, stuffed it in my bag, and told them I was going to beep due to library DVDs when instead I was going to beep because of the stolen merchandise. The only possible thing that I could possibly think of their security is that the store is covered 100% by security cameras and that the security watches everyone every second, which is sort of hard to believe considering the size of the store, the amount of people in the store. Also, the tags couldn't be dye tags because why would the announcement say "...the sales clerk has failed to remove the tags on your items. Please return to the nearest clerk for inspection.." when if the tags exploded with dyes, they really wouldnt have to return for the clerk for inspection but more '..return to the clerk to be hosed down and the dye rinsed off your theiving ass".
Which lead me to question that I have contantly asked myself, and probably asked once or twice here. Which would be a better deterant for crime, to have a small fine but a gaurantee that you are going to be fined if you do the offence OR have a super high fine/punishment but no real gaurantee that you will get that? If you know that if you jay-walk you are going to get a $1,000 fine but only 25% of the time, would you jay-walk because you could get away with it 75% of the time. But if you jay-walked you will get a $20 fine but it a guarantee that you are going to get caught 100% of the time and have to pay that fine, would you be more or less inclinded to jay-walk? I read that a student at the University of Alberta did a little spontanious study (not really published or anything in any journal, just in the student paper) on LRT paying and fines. For a period of 3 months, he road the LRT from his place to the University in the morning and back again in the evening, and each time he didn't pay the fare but road for free. Now the cost of the fare was (at the time) $2.25/ride, and the fine for fare evasion was $110. In that three month period, he claimed that he was stopped for fare evasion, and fined each time, a total of 4 times. So, in three months, he paid $440. If he had paid the fare all the time, that would have been $405 (30 days/month at 3 months = 90 days at $4.50/day for two trips forward and back). So, for three months travel, he got hit 4 times out of 90 days. That is about a 2% chance that when you ride the LRT you are going to get busted if you don't pay the fare, considering he actually rode the LRT 180 times (90 days at 2 times per day). So, let's average that out shall we? If you ride for 100 times, at a 2% chance of getting caught and having to pay the fine of $110/time, that would mean that by paying the fine you are paying $220 for the use of the LRT. BUT if you pay the fare for those 100 times, you are spending $225 (but now $250 since the price has gone up to $2.50/trip). So, in the long run, pay the fare or pay the fine, either which way, the law of averages over the long haul means you are paying roughly the same in fines as you do in fares, perhaps less now in fines than in fares due to the price increase.
IF the fine was a larger amount, say $1,000/fare evasion, would people be more willing to pay the fare even though the 2% chance of getting fined was there, or would people be more willing to pay the fare if the fine stayed at $110 but there was a guarantee of 100% of getting busted? An interesting experiment, wouldn't you say?
The other thought that I had when walking away with this thought in my head was a bit of graffiti on a construction plywood fence. "Speak Out....Silence is Violence!". Which is worse? speaking out against everything and anything with no real constraint or belief, or speaking out against nothing? It is always good to speak out and say something, but it is always better to have something to say...
Anyone else find the amusment in that last sentence being written by myself after having an entire entry of rambling nonsense, or is it just me??????
First was when I walked in to do some shopping at a mall. I had previously been to the library and gotten a few movies (gotta love it, $12/year membership and free movies and CDs all year round, and if the movies are in one of the many branches around the city, I just put a hold on it and they will actually deliver it to the library closest to me.) from them and had them in my backpack. So I walked into the store in the mall and sure enough those wonderful beeping devices went off screaming "We are sorry, but there the sales clerk has failed to remove the tags on your items. Please return to the nearest clerk for inspection". Of course, as I heard this I was expecting security officers to jump from the ceiling, drawing fully automatic weapons, ready to open fire on the criminal in their midst. I stood there....waiting...nothing. So I went about my shopping thinking that these attackers in the shadows saw that I was entering and not exiting and therefore I had no merchandise yet. I did my looking around, didn't find what I needed so I went to the customer service counter to let them know that I will beep. I told the ladies at the counter "I have been to the library, I have a few DVDs and CDs in my bag, I am going to beep as I go out", and they just say "don't worry. If you beeped coming in, you will beep going out". Sure enough, I beeped going out.
Now, what got me thinking is that not only did I get no security running up to me as I walked out beeping, but when I told the ladies I was going to beep going out of the store, they didnt ask to see inside my bag. I mean, I could have grabbed something, stuffed it in my bag, and told them I was going to beep due to library DVDs when instead I was going to beep because of the stolen merchandise. The only possible thing that I could possibly think of their security is that the store is covered 100% by security cameras and that the security watches everyone every second, which is sort of hard to believe considering the size of the store, the amount of people in the store. Also, the tags couldn't be dye tags because why would the announcement say "...the sales clerk has failed to remove the tags on your items. Please return to the nearest clerk for inspection.." when if the tags exploded with dyes, they really wouldnt have to return for the clerk for inspection but more '..return to the clerk to be hosed down and the dye rinsed off your theiving ass".
Which lead me to question that I have contantly asked myself, and probably asked once or twice here. Which would be a better deterant for crime, to have a small fine but a gaurantee that you are going to be fined if you do the offence OR have a super high fine/punishment but no real gaurantee that you will get that? If you know that if you jay-walk you are going to get a $1,000 fine but only 25% of the time, would you jay-walk because you could get away with it 75% of the time. But if you jay-walked you will get a $20 fine but it a guarantee that you are going to get caught 100% of the time and have to pay that fine, would you be more or less inclinded to jay-walk? I read that a student at the University of Alberta did a little spontanious study (not really published or anything in any journal, just in the student paper) on LRT paying and fines. For a period of 3 months, he road the LRT from his place to the University in the morning and back again in the evening, and each time he didn't pay the fare but road for free. Now the cost of the fare was (at the time) $2.25/ride, and the fine for fare evasion was $110. In that three month period, he claimed that he was stopped for fare evasion, and fined each time, a total of 4 times. So, in three months, he paid $440. If he had paid the fare all the time, that would have been $405 (30 days/month at 3 months = 90 days at $4.50/day for two trips forward and back). So, for three months travel, he got hit 4 times out of 90 days. That is about a 2% chance that when you ride the LRT you are going to get busted if you don't pay the fare, considering he actually rode the LRT 180 times (90 days at 2 times per day). So, let's average that out shall we? If you ride for 100 times, at a 2% chance of getting caught and having to pay the fine of $110/time, that would mean that by paying the fine you are paying $220 for the use of the LRT. BUT if you pay the fare for those 100 times, you are spending $225 (but now $250 since the price has gone up to $2.50/trip). So, in the long run, pay the fare or pay the fine, either which way, the law of averages over the long haul means you are paying roughly the same in fines as you do in fares, perhaps less now in fines than in fares due to the price increase.
IF the fine was a larger amount, say $1,000/fare evasion, would people be more willing to pay the fare even though the 2% chance of getting fined was there, or would people be more willing to pay the fare if the fine stayed at $110 but there was a guarantee of 100% of getting busted? An interesting experiment, wouldn't you say?
The other thought that I had when walking away with this thought in my head was a bit of graffiti on a construction plywood fence. "Speak Out....Silence is Violence!". Which is worse? speaking out against everything and anything with no real constraint or belief, or speaking out against nothing? It is always good to speak out and say something, but it is always better to have something to say...
Anyone else find the amusment in that last sentence being written by myself after having an entire entry of rambling nonsense, or is it just me??????
posted by Capt_Canuck at 2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home