Corporal punishment for felons???

I heard an interview this morning where a former cop and current professor of criminology suggested solving the prison overcrowding and cost escalation problems by allowing convicted criminals to opt for corporal punishment instead of jail time. He said flogging was no more "cruel and unusual" than prison in the long run.

The question I still have is how many lashes equals a year in prison? I've never experienced either one, so how can I know? I suspect I would prefer quite a few lashes to prison time. After a few, it probably gets a bit numbing.

Given the huge cost savings, I would be in favor if we thought the punishments were equal. They (experts I suppose) say the recidivism is high because you learn a lot in prison about crime (great social networking) and can't get a legit job afterwards. So we would be reducing that problem.

The other conundrum is what the purpose is for criminal punishment in the first place. Is it deterrence? Is it rehabilitation? Is it punishment on behalf of society? Each one might equate a different number of lashes to equal a year of prison.

Thoughts???

License to Smoke??

Australia is thinking about implementing a licensing system for smokers. The idea is that you pay for a graduated license where the cost depends on whether you want the license to purchase up to 1 pack, 2 packs, or 3 packs a day. Nobody could buy more than that, to prevent a black market in cigarettes from developing. You get your money back if you give up the license, so in theory its revenue neutral.

The libertarian and behaviorist in me are fighting it out. On one hand, the libertarian in me doesn’t want to see the government get involved in our lives any more than it already does or create new restrictions on our freedom to choose our behaviors. On the other hand, there are several effects of this license idea that would be predicted by behavioral science

One is immediate gratification bias. You can’t start smoking one drunken evening. If you have to wait until the next day, the idea is that the delay will get you to think more about the decision. Second is the idea of default bias. When people want to start smoking, they may be too lazy to go buy a license. Third, they could force a limit on themselves by getting only a one pack a day license. Fourth, there would be an added incentive to quit (you would get your money back).

An add-on idea is to require a smoking test to get the license. You don’t have to know how to smoke, you have to know the health consequences of smoking. Again, this is to take advantage of the laziness bias. Even though the test would be easy, just having to learn a few facts before getting the license might make a few more people never start.

My own add-on idea would be to have a limited number of licenses and auction them, kind of like the carbon emissions market.

So which side wins out, the libertarian or behaviorist? Is this a legitimate Pigouvian tax because of the negative externalities of smoking on health care costs? Or are the behavioral benefits worth the additional government intrusion costs? What do you think?

Protect the Fourth Amendment

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision regarding the 4^th Amendment concerns me. The case revolves around the concept that the police need a warrant to enter private property unless they have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed. But where do you set the bar on that “reason”? How much evidence do they need that evidence is being destroyed? And does it matter how serious the crime is that they are investigating? Does a police officer’s suspicion that someone is destroying evidence in a murder case give them more reason to enter without a warrant that an equal amount of suspicion that someone is destroying evidence of petty theft?

The reason the Supreme Court decision concerns me is that the case they were hearing involved the police smelling marijuana through an apartment door. They banged on the door and got no response. They heard “movement” inside. They suspected that the evidence (drugs) was being destroyed and so they entered. A lower court found that they didn’t have enough evidence that evidence was being destroyed. They assumed so because they banged on the door and it’s only natural for a drug suspect to flush the drugs when the cops are outside. The lower court said they shouldn’t have banged on the door. They should have got the warrant first. Then, the people inside wouldn’t have known they were there and wouldn’t have destroyed evidence. And hearing “movement” inside is not much proof. I find it even more worrying when the crime is only smoking marijuana. I can imagine the police being really worried that a murder suspect would get away with his or her crime. But smoking pot? Even if you are in favor of it being illegal, are you willing to give up your 4^th Amendment rights across the board to make sure no one ever gets away with it by flushing the evidence?

It seems to be that we have no more 4^th Amendment rights. All the police have to do is knock on the door or otherwise announce their presence and they can assume that the suspect is destroying the evidence for whatever crime the police are investigating. Or they can assume that the suspect knows the police are coming and would naturally destroy evidence. This is not even close to the probable cause standard. Scary.