Marginal Revolution: Markets in Everything

November
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

« Does free trade bring lower prices? | Main | Jacob Hacker's *The Great Risk Shift*, part II »

Markets in Everything

Posted by Alex Tabarrok on April 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM in Law | Permalink

Comments

I'm torn-

One one hand, I feel the law has generally been extended beyond its Constitutional limits- many of the crimes punishable by time served in a 5-star jail probably shouldn't be enforced anyway.

But on the other hand, the law's intent needs to be fully enforced. Otherwise, why bother calling it illegal? I enjoy the Colonial practice of publicly shaming criminals. Humiliation serves as a great incentive. What humiliation is there in sneaking into jail through the back door on weeknights after work?

Posted by: djconnor at Apr 29, 2007 10:41:44 AM

The main reason penalties decrease crime is not through deterrence but incapacitation. So humiliation is likely not effective.

Posted by: TGGP at Apr 29, 2007 1:45:09 PM

TGGP: The article you link to says that turning 18 has no effect on an individual's propensity to commit crime. Interesting, to be sure, but not at all conclusive about whether the deterrence effect is real in general.

My main complaint about this NY Times article is that it tip-toes around the real issue, which is that the demographic that typically pays for an "upgrade" in jail conditions -- 30-something white male middle class drunk drivers, according to the article -- is exactly the same demographic that is at high risk of being raped or brutalized while in jail or prison. Many of these people would probably be willing to pay a lot more than $100 per night to avoid being tossed in the general population with psychopaths and gangsters.

Sure, it offends notions of egalitarian justice for people to pay to improve the conditions of their punishment, but the other side is that many big-city jails have no business existing as they do in a civilized society.

Posted by: Ricardo at Apr 29, 2007 2:03:50 PM

$81 a night to avoid a possible death sentence (HIV) for a petty crime? Bring me my goddam wallet.

Posted by: adrian at Apr 29, 2007 3:17:25 PM

If only California were more blue, this sort of BS wouldn't be allowed.

Adrian:

I would pay $81 too. But what about people who did the same thing as you, but can't afford the $81. Are they deserving of a "possible death sentence"???

We supposedly live in a society where you should take responsibility for your actions and should suffer the consequences of your bad decisions. This is especially preached by those with more money. But isn't it funny that whenever those with money do something really stupid (i.e getting a DUI) they get to buy themselves out of the bad consequences of their bad decisions? I guess personal responsibility flies out the window when it means holding yourself accountable, as opposed to preaching about morally lackluster others.

Posted by: Viscus at Apr 30, 2007 12:28:37 AM

Could be good for tourism. Being able to legally pay for safety in correctional facillities might take
some of the anxiety out of coming to America. Of course it does sort of throw the idea of equality before
the law out the window so it plummets ten stories onto the road where it gets hit by a truck which then
reverses over it before the truck driver gets out and shoots it in the head.

Posted by: Ronald Brak at Apr 30, 2007 4:49:34 AM

I saw that over the weekend too, quite odd. I'm not entirely sure what I think of it, but my gut reaction is that it's bad.

Posted by: speedmaster at Apr 30, 2007 9:06:41 AM

Reminds me of the debtor's prisons, as described by Charles Dickens.

Heck, starting with the Pickwick Papers, he shows how those with more means could buy better living arrangements. Interestingly, one's fellow inmates could also be "bought off" (make them go live in another room), so they got some dough to spend on food and drink.

Posted by: meep at Apr 30, 2007 9:11:31 AM

I have a very favoriable opinion of this program, it sounds like they are working out some problmes (ie what can be allowed in) but it sounds as though they are goining about it in a responsible way. I would even take it a step further, pay to reduce sentence. In this society, hitting people in the bank account gets the point across effectively.

My only real concern is that municipalities may decide not to even try to improve their normal jails, to compel more and more offenders to pay for the "5 star jails." That is a real danger that must be guarded against.

Posted by: Eric B. at May 1, 2007 9:10:27 AM

I suppose most people have an idea of the level of prison comfort they would consider 'fair' for a given crime, but that voters tend to vote for worse ( and cheaper) conditions than what they consider 'fair', because the majority does not expect to end up in jail themselves.
If reasonably well-to-do people know that they will not get into the bad prisons, even they 'accidentally' do commit a crime, the tendency to save money on prisons will become even larger, leading to a situation where people know that prisons are unfairly harsh for most crimes, but do not care because it is not 'their' kind of people in them.
I get the impression that the psychology behind this set-up is based on the idea that well-to-do people commit crimes 'by accident', and should b punished not too hard, while poor people are 'real' criminals, and can be submitted too the standard regime. Given that this kind of thinking leads to cheaper prisons, I can imagine voters (and taxpayers!)using it as a rationale for saving even more on prisons

Posted by: Marius at May 1, 2007 12:13:07 PM