>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.
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.