Safe Speed Forums

We've been working on a scientific method to decide how hard to punish people.

P propto (S/C) * M

Where P is punishment, S is severity of the crime, C is the chance of being caught and M is a malice factor. This function serves the purpose of changing people's behavior using the smallest possible punishment. In English, the punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime, divided by the chances of being caught. The "chances of being caught" is the "example factor", that judges, teachers, Sheriffs of Nottingham, Home Secretaries and POW camp commandants refer to.

The M factor is a new addition - it refers to the Malice of the perp. If an act is intended to do damage to someone else, we want to magnify the punishment. This is to make allowances for "accidents", whatever they are, while still allowing some punishment for the merely negligent. Note that we consider the severity of the crime, not it's consequences. I'd suggest that the severity of the crime is related to the average of the consequences, i.e. not to the particular consequences of a specific instance of the crime.

I'm thinking of adding a term for V (vengeance). In some cases (e.g. Madoff), the public demand extra harshness.

P propto (S/C) * M * V

That's how he ended up serving 150 years - they gave him an M of 2 and a V of around 5. Anybody got any more terms to add, before we assign relative values?

The S and M are reasonable enough; the C is the problem.
If there is a 100% chance of being caught for a crime, one shouldn't face any significant penalty?
Should one who grew weed in a window face less punishment than one growing it in a cupboard?
Should someone who was caught doing 4 accidental, non risk, slight errors (no S or M) in three years face loss of their income?


Which is reasonable, if you know what it takes to change behaviour; this method fails when at the level of the individual offender. Even at the group level there'll be no fixed level of deterrence; everyone has a different threshold (a distribution) and some will never be deterred.
I think 12 months is much more than enough in this case (for reasons I’ve already given).


Why should any one person be an example? Surely everyone should be the deterrent?
That's the mark of a fair justice system: everyone gets the same for a given level of malicious intent; anything otherwise results with too harsh or too lenient sentences.


Speak for yourself.
<moral high ground>
Then and now:
I've never "outrun the law"
I've never attempted to "outrun the law"
I've never felt the need or temptation to "outrun the law"
(and I've never been done for speeding)
</moral high ground>

Returning to my original point: our biker was caught on video with his plate noted; he may have bolted if he realised trafpol were tailing, but he would have been tracked down and prosecuted regardless. Again, I don’t see how this biker stood any less chance of being caught than other road-using offenders.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Perhaps they would appreciate your opinions on the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 may need amonding when you have your formula sorted out.