Some countries have a very, very tough penalty, the ultimate penalty.

有些國家有非常嚴厲的死刑，最終極死刑。

And by the way, they have much less of a drug problem.

而順道一提，他們藥物氾濫問題比例更低。

This isn't the first time the Trump Administration has taken a tough stance on crime.

這不是川普政府第一次採以強硬立場打擊犯罪。

Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, sent out a memo directing prosecutors to charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.

美國司法部長 Jeff Sessions 曾發布一項備忘錄，呼籲並命令檢察官指控並起訴最嚴重且已被證實的罪刑。

And in the past, Democrats too have been proponents of tougher sentences.

而在過去，許多民主黨員也是加重刑罰的擁護者。

When you commit a third violent crime, you will be put away and put away for good.

假如你累犯三次暴力重罪，你將被打入監牢而且是終身監禁。

Three strikes and you are out.

三振，你絕對被判出局。

But do longer and harsher sentences actually work to deter crime?

但更長期且嚴厲的刑罰真能有效遏止犯罪嗎？

I think the general answer to that is probably not.

我想就整體來說的答案是或許不行。

Michael Cholbi is a Professor of Philosophy at Cal Poly.

Michael Cholbi 是加州州立理工大學的哲學系教授。

It seems to be that most of the studies that have been conducted have concluded that in fact the severity of punishments doesn't have a lot to do with the overall level of crime.

就我來看，多數研究案例結論出刑罰的嚴苛度其實跟整體的犯罪率無太大關係。

So to give you just a couple of examples, the United States has implemented since the 1990s a great many mandatory minimums.

給你幾個例子，美國從 1990年代起就執行了大量的最低刑期強制判決。

So these are laws that require that offenders be sentenced to a certain mandatory minimum.

這些法條要求犯人須依罪被判一定的強制最低刑期。

Usually, the mandatory minimums are higher than what the offender would ordinarily be sentenced with.

通常，最低刑期強制判決會比犯人原先被判的刑期來得更久。

And the studies that have conducted on this suggest that, you know, we have seen a drop in crime.

而根據這方面的研究指出，我們有看到犯罪率的下降。

But only a small fraction, maybe 5% of that can be attributed to these mandatory minimums, these harsher sentences.

但僅有極小的部分，可能 5 % 可以歸因於強制最低刑期與這些嚴刑的設立。

So what can be attributed to the drop in crime over the years?

所以什麼因素能被歸結為犯罪率下降的原因？

In 1994, President Clinton signed the three strikes bill.

1994 年，美國總統柯林頓簽署了《三振出局法》。

It mandated life sentences for offenders who had more than two prior convictions.

它授權執行累犯兩次以上罪犯的無期徒刑判決。

Since then, the amount of violent crimes has been cut by nearly half.

從那時起，暴力犯罪案件數量縮減至近乎一半。

However, experts say only a modest amount of the drop in crime could be attributed to Clinton's bill.

然而，許多專家表明只有少部分的犯罪下降率可以歸功於柯林頓的法案。

A Government Accountability Office report in 2005 found that the biggest reasons for the drop in crime were increased employment, increased police presence, and an aging of the population.

一則美國政府責任署於 2005 年的報告發現，造成犯罪率下降的最大原因為提高的就業率、刑警巡邏的加強以及人口老化。

To fully understand why harsher and longer punishments don't really deter crime, Cholbi says we need to understand how criminals think.

為完全了解為何較嚴厲且長期的刑期無法確實遏止犯罪，Cholbi 表示我們需要了解罪犯是怎麼想的。

I think, again, we assign much more significance to the probability of the punishment occurring than we do to the severity of it.

我想我們再次將焦點從罪刑的嚴苛程度放到犯罪發生當下的可能性上。

Take John, for example.

以 John 為例。

John wants to steal this apple.

John 想要偷這顆蘋果。

According to Cholbi, John isn't thinking about how long he'd go to jail for theft.

根據 Cholbi 的說法，John 不是正在想他會因偷東西而蹲多久的監獄。

But instead he's thinking about whether or not he'd get caught stealing the apple.

取而代之地，他是在想他會不會因為偷這個蘋果而被抓。

To deter John from stealing apples in the future.

為了阻止 John 未來去偷蘋果。

It might make more sense to increase the probability that he'd get caught rather than increase the severity of his sentence.

或許增加他被抓的可能性會比增加他刑罰的嚴厲性來的更加合理。

But would something as severe as the death penalty be a deterrent?

但一個與死刑同等嚴格的方法真能阻遏犯罪呢嗎？

Probably not, except in atypical or very specific circumstances.

可能無法，除非在一些不尋常或是特定的情況下。

It turns out that states with the death penalty have had higher murder rates.

結果顯示死刑合法的州擁有較高的兇殺犯罪率。

And studies have shown that if capital punishment has any deterrent affect at all, it may be too small to be detected.

而研究顯示，如果死刑有任何遏制犯罪的效果，這個效果可能小到難以被察覺。

So why do politicians insist on longer and harsher sentences when there's no proof that they actually deter crime?

所以為什麼很多政客堅持執行更長且嚴苛的判刑，儘管無證據顯示嚴刑能遏止犯罪？

It's important to realize politicians are vote maximizers.

很重要的是要了解政客是選票最大化的專家。

Jim Copland is the Director of Legal Policy for the Manhattan Institute.

Jim Copland 是曼哈頓政策研究機構的法律政策主任。

And so they're not policy wonks who are trying to go through policy studies and come up with the optimal policy.

因此他們不是那種會嘗試研讀一堆政策研究並想出最佳策略的政策專家。

What they're trying to do within their viewpoint is push policies that they think they can sell to their constituencies.

他們從自己觀點所嘗試做的是推播人民會買單的政策到各選區。

So being tough on crime is something that has been a political selling point by and large.

所以一般而言，在犯罪議題上採嚴厲的立場會是個政治賣點。

As criminal justice reform gains popularity, many worry that the release of prisoners will lead to an increase in criminal activity.

當刑事司法正義改革受到關注，許多人擔心釋放囚犯會導致犯罪活動的增加。

We see a lot of red states that are trying to reduce their prison populations.

我們看到許多紅州 (共和黨選區) 正試著減少監獄的人口數。

And if you do that smartly, you can do that without leading to an uptick in crimes.

而如果你聰明一點地去執行，你可以在不導致犯罪率增加的情況下做到這點。

From 1999 to 2012, New York decreased their state prison population by 26%, while the nationwide state prison population increased by 10%.

從 1999 到 2012 年間，紐約減少了該州 26 % 的監獄人口數，同時全國監獄人口數則成長了 10% 。

During that time the violent crime rate in New York dropped by 31%, while the national rate only dropped 26%.

這段期間紐約的暴力犯罪率掉了 31 %，同時全國的暴力犯罪率僅降 26 %。

New York accomplished this with a combination of changes in policy and practice.

紐約結合了許多政策及實務上的改變來達成這樣的結果。

Mandatory minimums were reduced, and in some cases eliminated.

最低刑期強制判決數減少了，而在某些案例中是被取消的。

And parole approval rates grew significantly.

而假釋獲準率則顯著增加。

So if politicians are serious about being tough on crime they should focus on catching criminals, rather than longer sentences.

因此如果政客堅決要嚴加對待犯罪行為，他們應該專注在緝捕罪犯，而不是加長刑期。