A criminal commits a crime, for the reason that his (her) expected cost is lower than the expected benefit.
The benefits are property interest or spiritual fulfillment.
The cost consists of direct cost referring to tools for criminal purpose, opportunity cost referring to the reduction in benefits earned through lawful economic activity, and penalty cost which is the loss generated by punishment after detection. When the benefits exceed the cost, criminal will have the tendency of committing a crime. What judicial organs should do is to increase criminals’ expected cost, while direct cost and opportunity cost lie in criminals’ hands, so they can only increase “penalty cost”.
A simple testable hypothesis can be designed like this: in the busy city street, move away all the refuse containers and observe the number of people who throw rubbish everywhere. In the same street, we establish a very striking slogan—“You will be imposed a fine as much as 10,000 dollars if you drop rubbish here.” Then observe people’s behaviors again. There should be a huge improvement because we increase their “penalty cost”.
From benefit,criminals don't product any goods.Their benefit get from others which means they steal benefit from society. From cost,The society need to pay a lot of cost for criminals,for example:jail,sue ,opportunity cost(If there are no criminals,Government could use the whole police system to do other thing ) and etc. May be, both of them are DWL. In fact, I don't understand the claim,Could you use other way to say it?
Throughout the semester you will have the opportunity to earn some bonus points by correctly answering economics related trivia questions. Some questions will require you to search the web for the answers, others may require you to search your textbooks, and still others may require you to simply use economic analysis to come up with the correct answer.
> Only students who are currently enrolled in one of my courses may participate.
> Use your full name when making a comment to ensure proper credit.
> The first student to correctly answer the question will earn 2 bonus points to be added onto his or her next exam score.
4 comments:
A criminal commits a crime, for the reason that his (her) expected cost is lower than the expected benefit.
The benefits are property interest or spiritual fulfillment.
The cost consists of direct cost referring to tools for criminal purpose, opportunity cost referring to the reduction in benefits earned through lawful economic activity, and penalty cost which is the loss generated by punishment after detection.
When the benefits exceed the cost, criminal will have the tendency of committing a crime. What judicial organs should do is to increase criminals’ expected cost, while direct cost and opportunity cost lie in criminals’ hands, so they can only increase “penalty cost”.
A simple testable hypothesis can be designed like this: in the busy city street, move away all the refuse containers and observe the number of people who throw rubbish everywhere. In the same street, we establish a very striking slogan—“You will be imposed a fine as much as 10,000 dollars if you drop rubbish here.” Then observe people’s behaviors again. There should be a huge improvement because we increase their “penalty cost”.
Submitted by Yuan Tao
Tao Yuan: Your answer does not address the main claim of the question. Reread the claim made in the opening paragraph.
From benefit,criminals don't product any goods.Their benefit get from others which means they steal benefit from society.
From cost,The society need to pay a lot of cost for criminals,for example:jail,sue ,opportunity cost(If there are no criminals,Government could use the whole police system to do other thing ) and etc.
May be, both of them are DWL.
In fact, I don't understand the claim,Could you use other way to say it?
Yang Yang: Read my comment above. The same applies to your answer.
Post a Comment