In the last article we read by Gary Becker, “The Economic
Way of Looking at Life”, Becker addresses his perspective on crime and
punishment and how they tie into the economy.
Becker believes that “the amount of crime is determined not only by the
rationality and preferences of would-be criminals, but also by the economic and
social environment created by public policies.”
His statement raises the question for me whether the social norms and
laws bring people to commit criminal acts or is it a person’s rationality or
preference that cause them to commit crimes?
I also found Becker’s statements that “fines are preferable to
imprisonment and other types of punishment because they are more
efficient. With a fine, the punishment
to offenders is also revenue to the State,” to stand out as something
significant for discussion. I believe
that statement makes sense to create revenue for the government but as
economists, how is the line drawn for what is beneficial for the state and what
is not in regards to crime? If people
commit criminal acts and the state can simply fine them (resulting in a more
efficient benefit for the economy), then what criminal act goes from a fine to
imprisonment? Particularly, because when
people are imprisoned, part of the state’s revenue is used to keep prisons and
jails functioning. Does this cause
controversy for the government to balance the State’s need for revenue as well
as for the safety of society?
Samantha brings up a great point. There seems to be a fine line between what is considered an "imprisoning crime" or what can simply just be fined. I think that if one is just fined this gives them incentive to continue committing these crimes as long as they are not being imprisoned. Such as professor schilling was saying how he parked in the 15 minute parking spot because he was okay with being fined the 25 dollars as long as he wasn't late.
ReplyDeleteSamanthas first question, what causes people to commit crimes, caught my attention as well. I believe that there a number of factors that provoke people to commit crimes. It could be a number of things such as values, economic standing, social norms, etc. To say that it is just one thing the makes people commit crime would be wrong in my opinion.
Samantha and Rachael, both, state valid points. To some extent, I agree with Rachael's statements of, "if one is just fined this gives them incentive to continue committing these crimes as long as they are not being imprisoned." and "It could be a number of things such as values, economic standing, social norms, etc."
ReplyDeleteI believe that, along with values, opportunity costs plays a role in these types of decisions that people make in regards to being fined and continuing with the behavior. Yes, people that commit crimes, are fined, and then continue to go about this can be viewed to have little or no values, but the spectator would also have to analyze the situation that the person was in at the time; this is how opportunity costs play a role in decision making.
Using the example that Rachael states, "Such as professor schilling was saying how he parked in the 15 minute parking spot because he was okay with being fined the 25 dollars as long as he wasn't late." From my point of view Professor Schilling, subconsciously, made the decision based on his opportunity cost. He figured that being on time and running the risk of receiving a ticket was more beneficial than being late.
So, I view that a lot of crimes such as speeding tickets, parking tickets, etc. are being committed by people everyday because, in the situation, the factor in their own opportunity costs.
It's obvious that there is a firm difference between crimes that result in fines, and those that lead to imprisonment. The question comes into play when we think about the balance of state revenue received from fines versus the money spent to imprison criminals. Opportunity cost also plays a role in this situation considering many people weigh the benefits of committing a crime to the consequences that could potentially be enforced. The parking ticket example Patrick pointed out about Professor Schilling is a prime example of this. It's interesting to think about how people view criminal actions in regards to their well being in society. I personally believe this does call on the government to balance the state revenue which will benefit the safety of society. There are many different reasons why people commit crimes. I think there are certain people who have no morals and honestly do not care about society or the safety of other people. They are usually the ones who find themselves imprisoned. Then you have good hearted people who occasionally slip up and commit petty crimes that result in fines. The goal should be to ensure safety and imprison all people who pose a threat to society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that all of the previous posts have hit the nail on the head about crime. Whether they consciously or subconsciously recognize it, there is some form of reasoning that goes into crimes. Whether they have weighed the economic price of a crime and deemed it worth it, or believed that their prior societal standing could be no worse than their death or imprisonment, people justify their actions even if it is only for the moment.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the question Samantha poses, I believe the government has a juggling act on its hands. The well-being of the people can be judged through so many facets that the government cannot focus on just one. Sure the economic side of fines allows the state to create revenue, but at what point does it come at the cost of protecting society and justice? For this I do not believe we will ever have a definitive answer as everyone will have a differing background/beliefs that will shape their opinion on where the line should be drawn.
The question of what activity constitutes imprisonment versus a fine is interesting. While some behavior clearly warrants imprisonment, there are various issues where imprisonment may seem too harsh. However, if we simply allow individuals or entities to pay fines, they may decide that their criminal behavior is more beneficial or, in some way, still results in a gain even after subtracting the fine. I do not think that the government could necessarily adjust for this, unless they made fines exorbitant, because each person’s utility is different. In my opinion, it is not possible to measure utility so the government would not be able to deter every individual. Possibly removing the system where certain crimes guarantee certain punishments would help to deter criminal acts because individuals would not as easily be able to measure their utility versus the cost of the punishment. At the same time, this opens up the law to unpredictability which is generally not favorable in law. As other issues that have come up in this course, I think that there are clearly cases in which the punishment should be one extreme or the other, but as for those activities that fall in the middle, there is no clear answer. There are inevitably going to be issues where one individual would consider a criminal act to warrant imprisonment, where others would decide that the crime requires only a fine.
ReplyDeleteFines might be more efficient in terms of punishing individual for their choices in deviant behavior but does it actually condone the behavior. At what point do people stop continuing the behavior that they were fined for? Sam brought up an excellent point that the states revenues would benefit from collection of fines. We could conclude then using Becker's economic approach that the State will be self interested in collecting the most amount of revenue possible. This creates an interesting dilemma: should the State try to deter deviant behavior or profit on those who wish to indulge in said activity. We could look at this in terms of speeding. A fine for speeding might be $100 but in terms of actual scope of enforcement and statistical probability of actually getting caught a $100 fine probably wont deter all. But the State will benefit greatly if they are able to catch multiple persons engaging in the activity. The State then could raise the price of the fine to an amount society deems deviant but not an excessive fine, as some would state as malicious obedience. So I would tack on another question in this discussion: should the state be self-interested?
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew makes an excellent point regarding the State acting within its own interest. The State could generate a large amount of revenue by acting in its own interest and imposing fines on many crimes that don't threaten the overall safety of society. It would obviously be an issue if the State changed the punishment for murder to a hefty fine, because some people would be willing to pay that price. However, many "crimes", such as speeding, parking tickets, traffic violations, etc., the state can act in its own interest and impose fines. With these crimes, a high enough fine could deter deviant behavior but also act as a source of revenue for the State. I believe the State should act in its own self-interest within reason, the overall safety of society must be considered first.
ReplyDelete