It’s hard to know what the appropriate penalties should be for any crime. But we can still take something from the economics of crime and apply it to the Paul Pelosi situation.
Here’s what Lisa Mascaro, Stefanie Dazio, and Terry Chea write in “Paul Pelosi Attack: Suspect Faces State and Federal Charges,” NBC Bay Area, November 1, 2022:
Additionally, DePape is charged federally with influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threatening or injuring a family member. He also faces one count of attempted kidnapping of a United States official on account of the performance of official duties.
In other words, because David DePape allegedly [I say “allegedly” to save myself from a lawsuit] attacked the husband of a politician, he faces charges in addition to the ones that he would have faced if he had attacked me.
One of the path-breaking articles in the economics of crime was Gary Becker‘s “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” published in the March/April 1968 edition of the Journal of Political Economy. I remember working my way through it in an intermediate microeconomics course that Kenneth Avio taught at the University of Western Ontario in the 1971-72 academic year. The bottom line that I took away from the article is that the higher the probability of catching a criminal, the lower should be the penalty the criminal faces.
How is that relevant in the DePape case? It pretty much has to be true that someone who assaults the husband of a woman who is second in line for the U.S. presidency (only after Vice-President Kamala Harris) has a high probability of being caught. This probability is much higher than the probability that the police would catch someone who assaulted me. So that means that the penalty for assaulting Paul Pelosi should be lower than the penalty for assaulting me, not higher as it is currently.
Of course you could argue that it’s more important to protect relatives of politicians than to protect me because assaulting the relative could intimidate the politician and take her away from her useful work.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that then we would have to make some judgment about the value of Speaker Pelosi’s work versus the value of mine. Hmmm.
Postscript: My bio of Gary Becker in David R. Henderson, ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is here. The picture above is of him.
READER COMMENTS
Nicholas Decker
Nov 1 2022 at 6:57pm
I disagree. I think the harms of political terrorism are particularly pernicious, because they can change the course of government policy, and generally for the worse. Hence, why we should punish political terrorism far more severely than ordinary assaults and murders.
David R. Henderson
Nov 2 2022 at 5:21pm
You write:
I see your point. By that same reasoning, we should punish assaults and murders of innovators such as Bill Gates or Norman Borlaugh much more heavily than an assault or murder of me. Would you agree? And if not, why not?
Everett
Nov 4 2022 at 1:52pm
Bill Gates and Norman Borlaugh have nothing to do with government policy, per se. I somewhat agree with Nicholas, but because Pelosi is titularly an elected representative of a people. And attempting to silence or control her is attempting to silence or control those who elected her.
As an aside this is a reason why I see the deference to the President with respect to lawsuits, depositions, etcetera, but no equivalent protection for Representatives and Senators as irrational. The President is the most easily replaceable elected or appointed official in the federal government, having a long chain of succession. It’s a process to replace any other elected or appointed federal officials.
Jose Pablo
Nov 2 2022 at 11:05pm
they can change the course of government policy (…) for the worse.
Is that even possible?
Everett
Nov 4 2022 at 1:54pm
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand?
vince
Nov 1 2022 at 7:27pm
Too many laws. He’s charged with attempted murder. If that’s not enough of a deterrent then our legal system needs reform … unless this is a defund the police problem … unless this is a mental health problem … unless this is a homeless problem … .
vince
Nov 1 2022 at 7:29pm
Maybe we should make hammers illegal …
Thomas Strenge
Nov 1 2022 at 8:09pm
I still want to know how DePape got to the Pelosi mansion, and why the security system wasn’t working.
BC
Nov 1 2022 at 9:51pm
A politically motivated attack on the Speaker’s spouse is not “just” an attack on an individual. It’s an attack on the *Office* of the Speaker. The attacker is trying to effectuate a political outcome through violence. The intended effect is not simply to take Pelosi “away from her useful work” but rather to punish her for or intimidate her from exercising the constitutional powers of her office. Thus, in turn, it’s an attack on our Constitution itself. Ditto the recent assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, which was undertaken to change the balance of the Supreme Court towards one that would be more friendly to gun control and abortion rights, and the mass shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice a few years ago.
Kevin Dick
Nov 1 2022 at 11:41pm
I think you’ve failed to adequately appreciate the incentives from the attacker’s point of view.
At the end of the day, the Becker paper is about incentives. And incentives are in the eye of the beholder.
There is a class of attacker for whom the benefit of attacking a political symbol is dramatically greater than anyone’s desire to attack you (I hope). In that case, the level of expected punishment necessary to dissuade them may also be dramatically greater. That may mean both a higher probability and a higher level.
Certis may not be paribus.
David R. Henderson
Nov 2 2022 at 5:18pm
Kevin,
Good point.
Everett
Nov 4 2022 at 2:02pm
This is a good reason why violence against women, the handicapped, and probably some other categories of people should face harsher sanctions under hate crimes laws.
Women and the handicapped are, as classes, an easier target for violence. And particular sorts of people seek out easier targets.
Until recently black people and foreigners were easier targets as well (under state laws), justifying countervailing federal hate crime laws.
And as you say for other kinds of people (e.g. certain religions, prostitutes, homeless), while the targets might not be easier, the attractiveness of the targets call out to particular people.
nobody.really
Nov 2 2022 at 2:39am
I suspect the article might have included a ceteris paribus assumption–an assumption that would not appear to apply when comparing an assault on Henderson to an act of terrorism. Therefore, I share many of the critiques voiced above.
First, Henderson’s argument assumes that an assault on himself would result in similar harm to an act of terrorism. But it is unclear how someone attacking Henderson would alter people’s behavior prospectively, whereas it seems quite clear that terrorism attempts to alter the behavior of observers. Indeed, the whole point of terrorism is to alter the behavior of observers. If society regards Crime A as having worse consequences than Crime B, it makes sense to have greater sanctions for Crime A than Crime B, ceteris paribus.
Second, Henderson’s argument assumes that people would have the same incentive to assault him as to assault a prominent politician (or family member). As Dick notes, this also seems doubtful. If society wishes to deter a crime, and people have greater incentives commit the crime against Person A than against Person B, it may make sense to have greater sanctions for committing the crime against Person A than Person B, ceteris paribus.
From these arguments, it follows that society should establish especially harsh sanctions against people who commit … civil disobedience. Those people committing trespass by remaining at whites-only lunch counters? Yup, those guys. After all, they committed their offenses for the purpose of influencing the behavior of observers. And they fully expected to get caught and punished. If society really wants to adopt an instrumentalist approach to enforcing its laws, these are the toughest nuts to crack.
David R. Henderson
Nov 2 2022 at 5:17pm
You write:
You caught me totally by surprise here.
Phil H
Nov 2 2022 at 3:15am
“the lower should be the penalty”
Where does the “should” come from? I’m not sure how it would be derived. I think I could understand the other way around: if the probability of catching a criminal is low, then the penalties must be high *in order to create a deterrent effect* – with the “should” coming from the desire to deter. But that logic wouldn’t hold in reverse.
So what is driving the “should” in this case?
Dylan
Nov 2 2022 at 8:10am
Others have made observations on the particular case, so I thought I’d just share my memories of my first exposure to Becker’s work in criminology. It was in a Sociology class on criminal law, and we talked about how Becker formalized some of the ideas of Bentham in regards to probability of getting caught and expected punishment and some applications of this in areas like parole violations, where they would make the chance of getting caught very high but the punishment relatively light, but consistent. That seemed to have been pretty successful from what I remember, but not sure if it has been more widely adopted.
My second exposure was in environmental economics, where we talked about the other side of things, where for some rules, the chances of getting caught were very low and so to compensate theory suggested putting forth a very high fine. Littering was the example given, where posted fines were $1000 or more. However, this is difficult to enforce, since the fine feels out of proportion to the crime for the one person out of a thousand that is actually caught.
MarkW
Nov 2 2022 at 9:26am
Given the generally unbalanced minds of people who try to attack politicians, I wonder how much deterrence effect any level of punishment would have. These seem to be disturbed individuals who expect to get caught, but — in their minds — are willing to ‘sacrifice’ themselves in pursuit of a greater good. Punishment in these cases seems less a deterrent than a way to provide the public a sense that the crime is taken seriously and that retribution has been exacted.
Everett
Nov 4 2022 at 2:11pm
You’re looking at the rare individuals who step up and do something under the status quo. If the expectation of getting off increases you’ll have more and more people taking the leap to action. You only have to go back as far as January 6th 2021 to see this (where a number of people thought they would be heroes, and either not prosecuted, or actively pardoned).
Yes, there will always be a few who don’t care about the consequences. And if the consequences become harsh enough you risk attracting suicidal or masochistic individuals who otherwise wouldn’t have acted. But there are a lot of people at the thresholds below the current threshold who would take action as the punishments, or chance of punishment, decrease.
Everett
Nov 4 2022 at 2:12pm
And the more people who act, the more of a bandwagon effect you’ll get.
BS
Nov 2 2022 at 1:40pm
Not sure that harsher justice has much deterrent/rehabilitation effect on people whose minds may be fragile. Appearance of harsh justice meted out to others might deter reasonable people. That still leaves us with “we’ll really punish this guy hard”. The treatment of disaffected people has become somewhat uneven these past few years depending on perceived political affiliations.
Dave
Nov 2 2022 at 6:04pm
I understand the argument based on the article: “the higher the probability of catching a criminal, the lower should be the penalty the criminal faces.” It may be a valid element of the penalty decision but it is hardly the only one. In fact, I would say it’s a minor one. I’m of the opinion, if we want a wide variety of citizens to commit to public service and voice a range of opinions we need to commit to protect them while in service. I believe this should extend to anyone we ask to uphold the law including judges, police, prosecutors, election officials, etc.
Jose Pablo
Nov 2 2022 at 11:12pm
“it’s more important to protect relatives of politicians than to protect me”
Since the “protection” offered by the State (thru the discouragement of the would-be criminals), depends on the product of the probability of catching a criminal, times the penalty the criminal faces, and given that, following your argument, the probability of catching Paul Pelosi’s attacker are much higher, the penalty could be lower (significantly) and the State would still be protecting Paul Pelosi much more than you.
steve
Nov 3 2022 at 7:32pm
Guess I need to read the paper. Does it really mean that if someone blows up a children’s daycare center and kills 50 kids (very highly likely to get caught) we should punish them more harshly than someone who shoplifts a Snickers (almost never caught)?
Steve
Jose Pablo
Nov 3 2022 at 11:01pm
Since the “protection” offered by the State (thru the discouragement of the would-be criminals), depends on the product of the probability of catching a criminal, times the penalty the criminal faces, and given that, following your argument, the probability of catching Paul Pelosi’s attacker are much higher, the penalty could be lower (significantly) and the State would still be protecting Paul Pelosi much more than you.
The additional protection came from the “enhanced enforcement” not from the “harsher punishment”, which so, would not be needed.
Knut P. Heen
Nov 4 2022 at 9:43am
Perhaps a standard agency problem. They say they will protect us, but it is far more important to protect themselves. Hence, both the probability of getting caught and the penalty for getting caught is higher. Both police and prison are costly. Everyone would do the same if they could get away with it.
On the other side, I guess one may argue that politicians are more likely targets of various crimes (I don’t know the statistics). Hence, the expected penalty should be higher for this group.
Comments are closed.