You are probably basing your opinion on gut feelings and conversation. But to prove your point you would have to show that criminals who are facing serious jail time if caught are unlikely to kill in situations where it appears that the murder will significantly lower their chances of getting caught. That is a rare situation, as I have already pointed out, because murder usually brings a lot more heat. But in those situations where it seems pretty obvious that killing helps evade capture I believe its done a lot. You can't invoke your experience to disagree unless you have been involved with these specific rare situations.

Show your work with data, David, or else you're guilty of gut feelings as well.

I should point out that the criminals who may or may not kill in situations where restraint brings them more worries, is too rare to get meaningful stats. We are basically talking about kidnappers and some escaped convicts.

But I think there is a way to prove my point. Namely by showing that even a set of non criminals in this situation have little problem putting aside their aversion to taking a human life if doing otherwise appears to have even a small downside. Of course some here won't accept my proof because they think that even criminals are more moral than cops.

According to this, only 57% of children who are abducted by strangers are found alive. It was a small sample and I suppose some of the kidnappers got off on killing rather than were simply trying to avoid getting caught. On the other hand there is no reason to think that the 57% who didn't kill all abstained for moral reasons. Many of them undoubtedly didn't kill to avoid the risk of death or life in prison or because they thought there would be extra heat if they killed.

http://theweek.com/articles/476009/r...ren-by-numbers

Article from the economist that suggests longer sentences do not deter but expectation of getting caught does.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/free...iminal-justice

Then there's some evidence that longer sentences do deter people who are aware of them (potential re-offenders)
As with everything the deterrent value can only be what people expect, not the reality.

You shifted from shifted from stick up artists to kidnappers.

The bolded is speculative at best for the ones who committed the act without killing. Plenty of scumbags go through life without killing someone. People are raised in this country with the idea killing someone is worst thing you can do for the most part.

And if criminals really acted the way you think they do than how in recent history did the states with the harshest penalties have a higher rate of murder than states without capital punishment? Risking their own life doesn't seem to deter murderers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us...r.html?mcubz=0

I certainly understand that my experience is somewhat anecdotal (or better stated, its a small sample size because its one prosecutor), but at least what I am stating is based on 11 years of experience dealing with hundreds of violent crimes. What are you basing your argument on? Because from what I can tell you aren't basing it on data or experience, but rather, as you state, your gut feeling. What is your statement "I believe its done a lot" based on exactly, other than what you have seen on tv? Also the statistics I am citing are not anecdotal. The majority of murders are committed by people who know each other. A murder that is the result of a truly random robbery (and not, for example, a drug rip off where the people involved already have beef) is extraordinarily rare. That is not my "gut feeling." That is what the murder statistics across the country reveal. And the fact that this type of murder is so rare would seem to contradict your "belief" that someone committing a robbery is likely to kill somebody if they believe it will increase their chances of getting away with it.

jman, in your experience how much more likely is a robbery with no serious physical harm done likely to result in no arrest. Compared to one where there is serious harm/murder committed.

Jman and Paul D are are on a different page than me and its not worth it to get on the same page.

Meanwhile would everyone at least agree that crimes should not be "good plays". Even if applying this principle results in some weird conclusions. For instance it would mean that if a convict is serving a life sentence in the harshest conditions allowed in a state with no capital punishment, he should get his sentence REDUCED if he escapes and doesn't kill in a spot where it might have reduced the chances of recapture.

Except that your policy makes the crime of escape a "good play".

It was anyway.

(Obviously the conumdrum goes away if we allow torture.)

unless you're asking about the robberies that he has personally committed, I don't know how you'd expect a prosecutor to have any idea how many go unarrested...

the idea that "5 years in jail isn't undesirable enough, let's make it 10" would have any effect of crime is completely ludicruous

criminals don't generally do a cost/benefit projection - they generally act impulsively, either ignoring risks or imagining that they have some superior capacity to get-away-with-it, and that's when they aren't mentally deranged and/or socially broken

when someone is a serial recidivist, they don't need a "stronger spanking" - they clearly just don't get it


rehabilitation and incapacitation should be the only CJ aims we pursue

neither necessarily requires imprisonment, but both require investment and creativity

We could take this a step further:

What if we evaluated people's chance of committing a violent crime by a whole host of factors such as age, race, gender, income level, occupation, criminal history, etc. Then we can decide what the acceptable risk level is and lock up everyone who exceeds it.

Just to be clear, I do not support such a system. I just think it is a more scientific approach than looking at only one criteria.