zlacker

Are you suggesting that, because of this, the existence of the police is not the main deterrent to crime?

>>mac010+(OP)
a few years ago, I getting a beer after work with a colleague. we had become friends and talked about quite a bit outside of work. As the topic of religion had come up in the past, it was not unusual for us to discuss. He was a devout Christian (some kind of protestant) and I am a self-described "athiest Catholic". At a certain lull in the conversation after a couple beers, he leaned in to me and asked in a hushed tone: "so, if you don't believe in hell, why be a good person?" I put my drink down and looked him in the eye and said "that's the scariest thing I've ever heard."

Plainly, I don't believe in deterrence as effective or a substantial reason why most people don't engage in bad behavior.

>>aaronb+LG
It's not _most people_ that I'd. worry about, though.

>>mac010+hH
with 60% of _murders_ going unsolved, do you think the 'deterrent effect' is really preventing the remainder from engaging in antisocial behavior?

>>aaronb+5Z
Probably not, but those who are already willing to be criminals in situations where they won't be caught would now be able to act with wild abandon, or execute much grander schemes with relative impunity.

60% of murders go unsolved because a sane murderer does not commit a murder that would be easy to solve. I'm sure many tempting, high-reward murders do not happen because they can't be committed without an ensuing police investigation.

Suppose 1% of people are currently criminals (I don't know the real number). Without an authority investigating and punishing crimes, that number might increase to 1.1% or even 2%. But a small fraction of those would likely increase their criminal behavior by an order of magnitude.