Ship of Fools: Deterrence

Thread: Deterrence Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025993

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

This thread was inspired by this post of orfeo's on the Zimmermann thread. More specifically it was inspired by this sentence

quote:
But I still don't think a conviction in THIS kind of case is a realistic deterrent, for the same reason that deaths on the road don't appear to cause other drivers to modify their behaviour: no-one believes it will happen to them.

Many people seem to think that the solution to various forms of undesirable behavior is to pass laws. However, many things that turned out badly were not planned. They turned out badly because of lack of foresight or simple forgetting. I do not believe that laws have any effect on this kind of behavior.

There is a serious problem with small children dying because they have been left in closed cars in hot weather; their parents forgot they were there. Some state legislatures have passed laws providing severe penalties for parents whose children die this way.

Do they really think that there is a parent anywhere in the world who would say to himself. "If I leave my child in the car and he dies, I will go to prison. I don't want to go to prison, so I will make sure not to leave my child in the car."?

The best preventative I have seen for this problem is signs on all the doors of a local store.

quote:
DID YOU FORGET ANYTHING?
IS YOUR CHILD STILL IN YOUR CAR?

I wish people would get over the idea that new laws will solve every problem.

Moo

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

There is often an assumption that deterrence can be achieved by an increase in sentencing. In fact the best method for improving deterrence is to improve detection and conviction rates. Unfortunately the latter is far harder to do than the former, and doesn't give the editors of right wing newspapers erections.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There is often an assumption that deterrence can be achieved by an increase in sentencing. In fact the best method for improving deterrence is to improve detection and conviction rates. Unfortunately the latter is far harder to do than the former, and doesn't give the editors of right wing newspapers erections.

There's no problem detecting and convicting a parent whose child dies in a hot car. My point is that laws do nothing to prevent this kind of thing.

Moo

Posted by Jason Zarri (# 15248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

There is a serious problem with small children dying because they have been left in closed cars in hot weather; their parents forgot they were there. Some state legislatures have passed laws providing severe penalties for parents whose children die this way.

Do they really think that there is a parent anywhere in the world who would say to himself. "If I leave my child in the car and he dies, I will go to prison. I don't want to go to prison, so I will make sure not to leave my child in the car."?

The best preventative I have seen for this problem is signs on all the doors of a local store.
quote:
DID YOU FORGET ANYTHING?
IS YOUR CHILD STILL IN YOUR CAR?
I wish people would get over the idea that new laws will solve every problem.

Well, that's a rather special case, isn't it? And anyhow, someone could make a similar argument against seat belt laws:

quote:
Do they really think that there is a person anywhere in the world who would say to themselves: "If I don't put on my seat belt and get seriously injured, I will be fined a large amount of money. I don't want to be fined a large amount of money, so I will make sure to put on my seat belt." ?

Yet as far as I'm aware seat belt laws have greatly reduced serious injures from car crashes. The reason why they work is that they don't function as I implied in my fictitious quote: if you're caught without a seat belt on at any time you'll be fined, not just in those cases where you don't put one on and actually get into a crash. Most people still don't think they'll get into a serious accident, but what deters them is the thought that they could get caught and be fined anyway. So while you might be right about penalties for leaving your child in your car, I don't think the conclusion generalizes.

[ 12. August 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: Jason Zarri ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo: I wish people would get over the idea that new laws will solve every problem.

Laws are cheaper than education.

I recall being told about an experiment at a notorious accident “Black Spot” near Blackbushe in the 1950s. Apparently, after several serious accidents, it was decided to place an obviously damaged car on the verge by the junction. It had the desired effect of slowing the traffic – for three months - but then traffic speeds returned to pre-display levels. The vehicle was replaced with a more graphic still-life and again speeds fell – for about three months. The experiment was abandoned on the basis that drivers would have become habituated to dead bodies all over the roadside within three months of their appearance. Education optional and limited to “bad things happen to other people”?

Re seatbelts – if the fear of being caught and fined was relevant then drivers wouldn't use their mobiles as they do would they? Although many do wear seatbelts a substantial minority don’t – my traffic police contacts estimated 10%. THIS is five years old but reminds us that the acceptance of seatbelt usage was due, at least in part, to the change in the law being heavily promoted on television; unavoidable (how many cuppas can you drink) education through repetition – just how I learnt my multiplication tables.

[ 12. August 2013, 23:10: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I think the best way to prevent children being left in hot cars would be to have parents who have lost children that way make TV spots.

They would have to be coached on how to do it, but I think a parent describing just what it is like to live without their child, knowing that they caused its death would be very powerful.

You could have more than one parent make these spots, and the TV stations could alternate them.

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

As cars can be made to warn you that you've left your keys in the ignition when you open the door or that you're not wearing a seatbelt, I don't see why they couldn't also be made to warn you that there's a child in the back -- if there's still a weight in the carseat 60 seconds (or whatever) after you turn the car off, an alarm sounds.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As cars can be made to warn you that you've left your keys in the ignition when you open the door or that you're not wearing a seatbelt, I don't see why they couldn't also be made to warn you that there's a child in the back -- if there's still a weight in the carseat 60 seconds (or whatever) after you turn the car off, an alarm sounds.

My car regularly reminds me that my shopping hasn't put its seatbelt on, I suspect your suggestion would create far too many false alarms.

Is it not more likely that parents shop for too long, forgetting that their child is still in the car, rather than than they forgot to take them out in the first place?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I think that if Zimmerman had been convicted it would have deterred other states from passing stand your ground laws and maybe even had reversed some. However, it did not happen. But my bet is that there will be an even more egregious incident which will reverse the course of stand your ground laws.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Is it not more likely that parents shop for too long, forgetting that their child is still in the car, rather than than they forgot to take them out in the first place?

There is no need to get into a discussion of which is "more likely." I think the important point to be made is that, in the child-in-car scenario, there are multiple potential causes. It would be wrong to assume that all cases of a child left in a car are due to forgetfulness. Certainly, it happens that the parent flat out forgets about the child. But, as JonahMan points out, there are cases where a parent has made a considered judgment to leave a child behind in the car deliberately, perhaps on the belief that the parent will not be away for too long, and then the parent gets distracted or forgets.

There have also been sad cases where a parent just uses colossally bad judgment, such as when a parent has left the child in the car while the parent is at work because the parent had nobody to leave the child with.

While I agree with Moo that a law will not help address all possible situations, that is not the point of such laws. The point of a law giving severe punishments to a parent who leaves a child in a car is to try to stop the completely preventable cases, such as the last two examples. In those last two cases, it is more poor judgment on the part of the parent that is to blame, rather than forgetfulness. Giving harsh penalties for such conduct could quite conceivably make the parent re-consider their judgments.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As cars can be made to warn you that you've left your keys in the ignition when you open the door or that you're not wearing a seatbelt, I don't see why they couldn't also be made to warn you that there's a child in the back -- if there's still a weight in the carseat 60 seconds (or whatever) after you turn the car off, an alarm sounds.

Children fall asleep in cars. If we've just got home and a child is sleeping in the car, and it's not too hot, I'm going to park the car in the garage, leave the car doors open and let him sleep. This is not a problem.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

If someone is at risk for harming other people, obviously locking them up so they have no access to others deters them. This sort of specific deterrence is completely supportable in my view.

If not locked up, then it would be wise to keep under lifetime watch, best probably by electronic monitoring people who predate on other people. This also is specific deterrence for that person. They would know they will be found out if they repeat their violence to others.

This sort of specific deterrence is a really good idea. Fill the jails with the violent. Discharge the nonviolent.

The general deterrence idea however is folly. No-one thinks of the penalty when aroused to violence. That comes later with the pleas of troubled early life, addictions, and other whining of an exculpatory nature.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

At least 2 forms of deterrence play a valid role in sentencing here, and appeal courts stress the need for sentencing judges to refer to each in the reasons they give. The first is specific deterrence, that specific to the person being sentenced. For many crimes of violence, this is irrelevant, as the risk of re-offending is limited. Sexual offences, especially those involving children, are the exception to this. Your average axe-murderer is not likely to commit another similar offence.

The other form is general deterrence - showing to the public at large what will happen to anyone who offends in the particular manner. But as has been pointed out upthread, certainty of apprehension is to my mind much more relevant.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think the best way to prevent children being left in hot cars would be to have parents who have lost children that way make TV spots.

They would have to be coached on how to do it, but I think a parent describing just what it is like to live without their child, knowing that they caused its death would be very powerful.

You could have more than one parent make these spots, and the TV stations could alternate them.

Moo

I think this is a good idea.

However, I also want to comment more broadly on what you've said up top.

I think you're generally right, that there are situations where laws don't do a very good job because it's a lack of foresight or forgetfulness or unfortunate omission that causes the bad effect, rather than some kind of positive act.

There are, however, some laws that deal with this by placing a positive obligation on someone to ensure that something does or does not happen. It becomes that person's duty to create a positive outcome. And that includes guarding against inadvertent errors as well as deliberate wrongdoing.

I'm trying to remember off the top of my head when this has come up at work. I think it's been done with aircraft pilots, but that's not something I worked on myself so I can't be 100% certain.

But this is the example I remember working on. It places positive obligations on superannuation trustees to ensure that trust property is not misused.

The point of such laws is to make it somebody's business to not only not do the wrong thing themselves, but actively ensure the right result. Doing this focuses the person's attention in a way your average law doesn't.

But it's onerous. Deliberately so. And that's why such laws are relatively rare. There has to be (or should be) a good policy reason for fingering someone and making it their job to make sure everything's okay.

I doubt that such a law could be sensibly made in the particular situation you've raised, because let's face it, laws about how to parent aren't going to be welcomed no matter how well intentioned.

Posted by flags_fiend (# 12211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
As cars can be made to warn you that you've left your keys in the ignition when you open the door or that you're not wearing a seatbelt, I don't see why they couldn't also be made to warn you that there's a child in the back -- if there's still a weight in the carseat 60 seconds (or whatever) after you turn the car off, an alarm sounds.

I suppose the other issue with this is that for some situations it is probably safer to leave the child in the car for a short while than take them out. When I was a child we had to stay in the car when it was being filled with petrol and then the petrol paid for, and this requires the car to be turned off...

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I think in many cases laws are passed for no other reason than to allow the government of the day to say "we've done something".

It is using the law to play politics, and no-one should be surprised when nothing improves.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I think in many cases laws are passed for no other reason than to allow the government of the day to say "we've done something".

It is using the law to play politics, and no-one should be surprised when nothing improves.

The flipside of this is that any time something goes wrong, there is a chorus of cries to the government: Do Something!

No-one ever seems to accept that perfection isn't possible. When a risk eventuates, everyone demands to know why that particular risk wasn't eliminated (while ignoring all the other risks that might possibly need to be guarded against, they just haven't eventuated yet).

My favourite ever thing from The Onion TV show/website was the panel discussing who was to blame for a truck crashing over the wall of a canyon and hitting a bunch of kayakers in the river below. Who should have forseen this? Should we install kayaks with early warning system for trucks falling out of the sky?

EDIT: These days it's on YouTube.

[ 15. August 2013, 14:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

There is a Pulitzer prize winning article on the subject of small children dying in cars, which covers most of the points on that topic in this thread. It is a heart-breaking read.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0