It might make sense but it makes it even more difficult for them to find jobs. People who commit serious crimes generally don't think rationally, so incentives don't help much.
"People who commit serious crimes generally don't think rationally"
This, exactly.
I don't know why so many people seem to think tougher prison sentences/three-strikes laws, etc. will deter much crime. If you're going to commit a crime, you've already convinced yourself that you're going to get away with it.
I think people like to think this way because it's so much easier than trying to solve the problems that lead to crime in the first place.
> I don't know why so many people seem to think tougher prison sentences/three-strikes laws, etc. will deter much crime.
Not only that, but once you go to prison, at least in the United States, you'll likely go again. Going to prison makes you unemployable, makes you lose certain federal assistance, and leads to close contact with gangs. When you finally get out, you often won't even be able to vote, you can't find a job, and you'll probably get evicted. You're pretty much a second-class citizen at that point, worse off than you were before. If we want people to commit fewer crimes, prison should be the last resort (at least for non-violent offenders), not the first step. Better alternatives exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-Related_Crime
I'm pretty far removed from this world of crime and only relay what I read coupled with my biased experiences but I suspect crimes build on top of one another. If you get away with a small crime earlier you'll end up breaking the seal and moving on to higher risk crimes. If you keep on getting away with it you end up taking on more and more risk. At the same time there are not enough resources to enforce a low level crime so fixing the underlying problems is a much better idea.
