Law and Economics Paper #8
Human behavior may be analyzed according to the economic principle of cost-benefit. In committing a crime, a perpetrator analyzes whether the benefits exceed the costs of his punishable act. Cost may be measured according to the corresponding punishment for his criminal act as well as the chances of getting caught. Most of the time, the commission of a crime does not really depend on whether or not the perpetrator knows that what he is doing is wrong.
The cost-benefit principle, like all economic theorems, operates on the premise that all beings are rational. Thus, knowing that what he will be doing is wrong, the criminal decides to commit a crime because he thinks that either he will not be caught (or at least the chances of getting caught are slim) or that his needs outweigh the ramifications of his act. This mental process of analyzing the costs and benefits can be likened to a man's conscience. What spurs a man to do wrong? Perhaps the more important question would be, what could give the potential criminal the appropriate incentive to choose not to commit a crime?
Enter punishment. Is punishment a sufficient deterrent? Most modern criminal systems view imprisonment of a criminal or the meting of penalties as forms of retribution, reformation or deterrence. Is the cost to the state or society of inflicting punishment commensurate to the degree of deterrence or reformation? Imprisonment entails certain costs to be shouldered by the State. So is the execution of a criminal. Some statistics show that the possibility of being subject to the corresponding penalty for a crime does not adequately serve as a deterrence. Neither does incarceration serve as an effective means of reforming a prisoner. In Middle Eastern countries, commission of a crime comes with immediate and drastic punishment, a thief ends up having his hands cut off no matter how high or low the value of the object he stole. However, in the Philippines, the re-imposition of the penalty of death a couple of years ago did not drastically reduce the commission of crimes punishable by death.
Perhaps the key lies in effective enforcement of the law. In Singapore, even a minor infraction of the law is dealt with --- from jaywalking to spitting on the streets, to chewing gum. A perpetrator is more likely to commit an unlawful act if he knows that the probability of being apprehended is slim. This fear of being caught would appear to be more effective than the fear of being meted the appropriate penalty. Hence, in a room full of valuables, a thief would be more likely to steal if there weren't any security cameras than he would if the room didn't have any other form of security. This is not to suggest that we would be better off having a totalitarian government where restriction consists in careful surveillance of the citizens. The deterrence of a crime must not solely be left to the conscience of the criminal. The state must take an active role in ensuring the public and in warning the criminal that any unlawful act would be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
"He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it."
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Human behavior may be analyzed according to the economic principle of cost-benefit. In committing a crime, a perpetrator analyzes whether the benefits exceed the costs of his punishable act. Cost may be measured according to the corresponding punishment for his criminal act as well as the chances of getting caught. Most of the time, the commission of a crime does not really depend on whether or not the perpetrator knows that what he is doing is wrong.
The cost-benefit principle, like all economic theorems, operates on the premise that all beings are rational. Thus, knowing that what he will be doing is wrong, the criminal decides to commit a crime because he thinks that either he will not be caught (or at least the chances of getting caught are slim) or that his needs outweigh the ramifications of his act. This mental process of analyzing the costs and benefits can be likened to a man's conscience. What spurs a man to do wrong? Perhaps the more important question would be, what could give the potential criminal the appropriate incentive to choose not to commit a crime?
Enter punishment. Is punishment a sufficient deterrent? Most modern criminal systems view imprisonment of a criminal or the meting of penalties as forms of retribution, reformation or deterrence. Is the cost to the state or society of inflicting punishment commensurate to the degree of deterrence or reformation? Imprisonment entails certain costs to be shouldered by the State. So is the execution of a criminal. Some statistics show that the possibility of being subject to the corresponding penalty for a crime does not adequately serve as a deterrence. Neither does incarceration serve as an effective means of reforming a prisoner. In Middle Eastern countries, commission of a crime comes with immediate and drastic punishment, a thief ends up having his hands cut off no matter how high or low the value of the object he stole. However, in the Philippines, the re-imposition of the penalty of death a couple of years ago did not drastically reduce the commission of crimes punishable by death.
Perhaps the key lies in effective enforcement of the law. In Singapore, even a minor infraction of the law is dealt with --- from jaywalking to spitting on the streets, to chewing gum. A perpetrator is more likely to commit an unlawful act if he knows that the probability of being apprehended is slim. This fear of being caught would appear to be more effective than the fear of being meted the appropriate penalty. Hence, in a room full of valuables, a thief would be more likely to steal if there weren't any security cameras than he would if the room didn't have any other form of security. This is not to suggest that we would be better off having a totalitarian government where restriction consists in careful surveillance of the citizens. The deterrence of a crime must not solely be left to the conscience of the criminal. The state must take an active role in ensuring the public and in warning the criminal that any unlawful act would be dealt with swiftly and appropriately.
"He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it."
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca