What does a 3 year prison sentence accomplish that 30 days wouldn't?

As I pointed out above, I don't think 3 year prison sentences are an answer.

Just saying that the proposed solution of a fine/30 days sentence will likely not decrease the rate of bike theft.

I think a prison sentence on someone's record will make them more likely to repeat the crime. With the criminal record, minimum wage, or close to, are the only options available.

Also, it's human nature to believe you won't get caught. If someone thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it.

Thirdly, what makes you think a 3 year sentence would deter someone from doing it any more than a 30 day sentence would? I'm sure the person didn't even realize stealing a bicycle carried a 3 year sentence. For deterrence to work, a person must know the punishment for the crime. Also, the 3 year sentence doesn't fit the crime. At some point, it becomes cruel and unusual. I think locking a person up for 3 years for stealing an unlocked bicycle that the police planted trying to bait someone into stealing it is cruel and certainly unusual. It's also pretty darn close to entrapment.

What if police left a penny on the sidewalk and arrested anyone who picked it up and locked them away for 3 years? How much different is that from the scenario I described? How about a quarter? How about a $20? What denomination would make 3 years and arguable entrapment acceptable?

Finally, we have a deterrence paradox. If the US houses the largest prison population in the world, why are there people still stealing bicycles? On the other hand, if crime is at an all time low, why are we still locking people up at an increasing rate every year?

> I think a prison sentence on someone's record will make them more likely to repeat the crime. With the criminal record, minimum wage, or close to, are the only options available.

What difference then does it make it if is 30 days or 3 years? In other words, how is 30 days an improvement to the problem of deterence (though it is an improvement to the taxpayer)?

> Also, it's human nature to believe you won't get caught. If someone thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it.

Not necessarily, some people who know that with high probability they will get caught still perform crimes; drug addiction can be quite powerful. At a first glance, I would think that substance abuse treatment/improvement in mental health facilities can help here.

> Thirdly, what makes you think a 3 year sentence would deter someone from doing it any more than a 30 day sentence would? I'm sure the person didn't even realize stealing a bicycle carried a 3 year sentence. For deterrence to work, a person must know the punishment for the crime. Also, the 3 year sentence doesn't fit the crime. At some point, it becomes cruel and unusual.

I agree here; this is part of the reason why I don't think long sentences are a good solution. But in my view, your proposed solution does not do much either to the problem of deterrence.

> I think locking a person up for 3 years for stealing an unlocked bicycle that the police planted trying to bait someone into stealing it is cruel and certainly unusual. It's also pretty darn close to entrapment.

What if the police simply want to install a tracker, in order to investigate the possibility that the theft is being performed by an organized ring which regularly steals bikes, in which case a 3 year sentence could fit the crime? Standard bikes do not come with trackers; this will require active intervention.

See http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Thief-Makes-Quick-Wo... - here the "entrapment" was done by civilians. Sting operations by civilians are certainly useful in many parts of the world, e.g to expose bribery. I fail to see why there should be a blanket "no to entrapment" in the case of police, but continue to allow it for civilians. Personally, I believe entrapment by both civilians and police forces has its uses at times.

> Finally, we have a deterrence paradox. If the US houses the largest prison population in the world, why are there people still stealing bicycles? On the other hand, if crime is at an all time low, why are we still locking people up at an increasing rate every year?

I don't have an answer to this. On the other hand, in my view your proposals do not either.

>What difference then does it make it if is 30 days or 3 years?

Because a 3 year gap in your work history is much harder to explain than a 30 day one. Also, when someone runs a background check and sees that a hire was imprisoned for 3 years, they will think the crime was much worse than it was.

>Not necessarily, some people who know that with high probability they will get caught still perform crimes; drug addiction can be quite powerful. At a first glance, I would think that substance abuse treatment/improvement in mental health facilities can help here.

That's an exception that proves the rule. Drug addiction isn't rational thought.

>But in my view, your proposed solution does not do much either to the problem of deterrence.

I think prison terms as deterrence is an illusion. Prison terms as punishment which may have a secondary result of future deterrence is more likely.

>What if the police simply want to install a tracker, in order to investigate the possibility that the theft is being performed by an organized ring which regularly steals bikes, in which case a 3 year sentence could fit the crime? Standard bikes do not come with trackers; this will require active intervention.

You are simply adding complexity to the same immorality.

>I fail to see why there should be a blanket "no to entrapment" in the case of police, but continue to allow it for civilians.

Police can and do arrest you. There are privacy laws in the US against such things, or at least there were.

>I don't have an answer to this. On the other hand, in my view your proposals do not either.

As I stated earlier, I don't believe deterrence is the primary reason for sentencing. It's punishment for a crime.