you understand it's not "real world" here right ? that having 3.5 minutes in the box instead of 2.5 (we're talking what, 30% increase, wich is HUGE statistically) the gain would not be any less ?
you understand the punishment was not reduced and that the 5 minutes turned into 2.5 because penalties do not carry over right ? there's no chances Myers goes "hey! no way I do a full 5 min, I'll wait before going dirty".
You also understand the whole theory sounds nice on paper but it does work only for small stuff. It does not explain a huge % of criminals barely making enough $ to get to the next day (on top of being caught -jailed once in a while thus losing even more), it does not explain why places with the most severe measures do not have lowest crime rate, it does not explain criminals (a decent %) who would have more in their pocket with a 20$/H job, it does not explain why people who became rich are still commiting criminal acts ? and the list goes on and on and on...
not if you wanna talk about people going 100 in a 90 kmh zone, or not making a full stop, sure... humans do that. huge majority would not do a "predatory hit" though.
Hmmmm....
Well Known economist and Judge who has an entire economic field based on his work or guy on HF.
I don't care about 2.5 vs 5 either if you make a malicious hit and should have further punishment.
And a lot of your post doesn't make any sense with what I said or the research either...
You are talking about the highest punishments don't have the lowest crime rates and your right thus a huge part of the study and I mentioned it. Finding the optimal punishment ie not too short so that it acts as a deterrent but not too long so it doesn't cost society too much money and once you hit that point most people won't commit the crime anyway.
You are clearly unaware of the actual theories and simply made assumptions about it being about longer sentences are good (it isnt) and criticized it and me by saying "if you don't understand how this study I've only heard about today doesn't apply in this scenario even though you've studied it for years then you are in the wrong field"
Now everyone can have there own opinion and we can/should discuss them and come to New ideas. You had your opinion i proposed a counter opinion and cited a well known academic in the field I was basing my opinion on to which you basically replied,
"You don't know what you are talking about"
Can you cite a counter-argument to my proposition or is that just your opinion? Because once again I cited someone who literally created an academic field that has been used in sentencing law.
Im gonna look at your comment about rich people it actually completely explains why rich people keep committing crimes, the likelihood they get caught multiplied by the cost of getting caughtbis almost always lower than the gain from doing it. For example tax evasion/avoidance is a line commonly towed by the wealthy and if they get caught they can get out of it usually with a fee thus low risk for them.
Oh and lastly your comment about this not being the real world? You are right but also wrong about this not applying. This is based on human behavior and how to structure rules to achieve an optimal outcome of human decisions.
And one more time feel free to criticize my opinion, my field of study as a whole, or the hypothesis I provide but unless you are a peer in the field (in some way) please do not criticize whether that person understands their field. Its not a good way to discuss a topic or debate. You come off as someone who is either arrogant or childish.
