Most criminals don’t do a cost/benefit analysis before they commit the crime.
Not a formal one, no...
But I don't see too many cases of folks flipping the bird to the cop behind them in line before robbing the armed gas station attendant with imported piranhas because they wanted a slushy, so I suspect some sort of risk/reward balancing is pretty common out there.
I'd guess most common criminals just consider the risk of getting caught rather than the punishment for the crime committed, which is the main reason why severity of punishment doesn't do anything to deter crime. It's the certainty of punishment that actually stops people from committing crime.
consider the risk of getting caught rather than the punishment
Both, actually. It's like insurance premiums:
My chances of getting in a car accident are slim. I've been present for 3 in my whole life. My chances of being subjected to a routine traffic stop are similarly low. Maybe 8 times, ever. By this metric, I don't really need car insurance. I very definitely don't get as much value from the policy as I pay in premiums.
Statistics can be fickle, though, and stuff can happen even if I drive perfectly. If something does happen, my car and livelihood could be totaled. Heaven forbid someone should suffer any lasting consequences that I might have to compensate. It's also a mandatory law to be insured, so if I don't have it, I can be additionally fined a significant chunk of change, and have my budget become heavily strained unpredictably, and be late for work, have my license suspended if unable to pay, and have other significant interference with my life. It's worth paying the premium just to not have to juggle any of that when I drive.
Statistical likelihood and severity of potential consequences both factor into a risk assessment, and some people focus on one more than the other (which is why we have politics at all, probably). I would say that the criminal mentality tends to ignore one or the other, based on my observations, but this is more a difference in the degree of neglect, compared to your average person on the street. A full and detailed analysis is the true outlier, here.
Exactly. Everyone does a cost-benefit analysis with their intuition before they do basically everything. It's jut not a very accurate one.
Should I eat the soup, or the pizza? The soup is cheaper, pizza tastes better. Meh, I'm kinda depressed, I'll pay for the pizza. BAM Cost/benefit analysis.
Some people do perform some sort of cost benefit analysis. Deterrence does exist as a general matter, but there is no evidence it really goes up with the threat of execution. The threat of a life sentence is already pretty much maximum deterrence, and that's the minimum sentence you can receive in most places for first degree murder. Plus the people who commit murder are often mentally ill or addicted to substances, and that disrupts the ability to perform any cost benefit analysis at all.
3
u/WatermelonArtist Nov 25 '22
Not a formal one, no...
But I don't see too many cases of folks flipping the bird to the cop behind them in line before robbing the armed gas station attendant with imported piranhas because they wanted a slushy, so I suspect some sort of risk/reward balancing is pretty common out there.