The death penalty only makes sense for white collar crime, and it makes a lot of sense in this setting. Theres very little you can do to disincentivize people from engaging in crimes of irrationality or desperation, but I think if you threaten someone who is well off already with death for stealing, or failing to report accurately to the EPA/FDA etc. The number of cases will rapidly go to zero.
> I think if you threaten someone who is well off already with death ... number of cases will rapidly go to zero.
You can think that, but you'd be wrong. Everyone who commits a crime thinks they're gonna be the one to get away with it.
It's a very popular opinion among certain kinds of people, but history and even present day has shown, time and again - You can't slaughter your way to a peaceful law-abiding society.
China uses the death penalty this way. North Korea has an even stricter system. I don’t think the number of cases have rapidly gone to zero. It seems to breed endogenous corruption and a mafioso approach to internal affairs. You have to deal with lack of proportionality—no matter where you draw the line, once you’ve crossed it there’s no reason not to keep going.
That's barbaric. White collar crime is a policy choice. Economies require a certain amount of slack in order to function. If an economy had a zero tolerance policy for white collar crime than nothing would ever get done, because differentiating between fraud, incompetence, and bad luck is extremely difficult in all but the most straightforward of cases. If we wanted to de-incentivize white collar crime we have so many options that are (a) more humane, (b) more effective, and (c) less controversial. We could start prosecuting more cases of fraud, or improve regulations, or increase incentives for whisteblowing, or reform corporate governance, or any of a million other ideas.
