Don’t get caught* committing violent felonies. Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense. There’s an equally important chance of being caught.
Consequences are not harsh if criminals are not caught. The issue is in the lack of enforcement. Punishment for any crime should be inevitable. But proportional to the type of the crime.
Do they? There’s an overwhelming amount of unprosecuted petty crime in my city perpetrated a handful of known individuals. Harsh penalties protect the public from people who get caught. But that’s no consolation when my gas tank gets drained or a window gets busted out to search an empty backpack.
They don't even necessarily protect folks from those that get caught.
We sit there and put folks in jail or prison for an offense, where we might hold them in solitary for months - and if they aren't, they are in a system where people *assume' they are going to get raped by another inmate (it is a common joke, after all).
And then we let them out, put them on probation with a bunch of fees that need paid, a record that makes it difficult to find legal work - especially the sort that will pay bills plus probation - and might exclude them from public housing. And when I say exclude, I mean they might not be able to stay with family for a week if their family lives in public housing.
Harsh penalties do not protect the public. Harsh penalties are the result of a system meant to extract misery, sometimes for fairly minor expenses. If we (Americans) cared about protecting the public, we'd house people, feed them, make it so crimes of desperation are fewer. We'd treat folks well in prison, treat pre-trial folks like they are innocent, and focus on integrating folks into society in ways that few would mind a felon for a neighbor.
