In fact many claim that harsher punishments don't work too well for violent offences. Violent people don't think of consequences.

But for premeditated large-scale economic offences, they certainly work, because the punishment is part of the calculation that the criminal makes.

Non-violent, victimless offense, yes.

This appears to have been premeditated with a number of victims, all of whom were disadvantaged relative to the perpetrator.

perhaps for a single non-violent offenses.

But for theft by deception practiced at scale? Absolutely should be jailed for a significant amount of time.

I'd argue for significant amount of jail time simply for the waste and violations of law involved in needlessly ringing so many phones and violating Do Not Call laws.

these people create a real cost for society, and the penalty needs to be bigger than "oh, just give back some of your criminal gains". If you think that caging someone is inappropriate or doesn't work, you can go for lashing, or something else. What would you actually suggest as a deterrent?

I don't think the argument here is against jail time. Just that the reasoning it will work as a deterrent is flawed.

Unfortunately, we/I don't have a good answer to your question what to use as a deterrent. The problem is a) people do not act rationally in a universal way b) people are bad with statistics c) arrest precision (Pr[you get arrested|you commit a crime] is not that great.

(c) is subjective so let us forget about it. If the criminal was rational then they would think as follows:

Pr[caught]Cost-Pr[not caught]Pr[succeed|not caught]payout >0 => commit crime. Humans are pretty bad at underestimating probability of events against them and overestimate their chance of success (people buy lottery tickets for instance).

If a criminal is irrational, deterrents will not really work by definition -- you might be able to make due in a per case basis.

You can view this as a different version of lottery ticket. No matter the risk of wasting your money, people are going to keep buying them. It really baffles me too.

P.S.

Consider now an extreme version tried in the past -- you commit even a simple crime, you are executed. First, this is a waste of resources (you could still use these individuals). In any system of law, yet in particular in a common law system, where the weight of precedence and law interpretation is much greater, every single one of us has almost surely committed a crime by some interpretation, obscure law etc.

Second, as a criminal at that point you are going to escalate. The damage a single individual can cause to society on average has increased dramatically over time. Do not think about gun ownership. A man can just run over a busy intersection in their attempt to escape.

To give some weight to my words, here is a personal story. My car was hit by an individual in a car a couple of years back on my way home. The driver drove the wrong way on a one way street, panicked and crushed into me. Instead of pulling over the they attempted to escape. In the process, pedestrians had to jump for their lives, while another car was hit also.

That person endangered the lives of several people, damaged one more car, to avoid a DUI (my opinion from their erratic behavior and appearance). So only by luck, a possible DUI/crash did not upgrade to mass murder.

Yes, people are not strictly rational, and I generally consider a lottery an innumeracy tax.

The ideal deterrence, based on psychological studies, is small penalties reliably and immediately handed out, but the only way to implement that is a massive surveillance society and penalties without the delay of trials.

This could work with speeding, instead of being an infraction, would just be taxed, maybe $0.01 per [mph over the limit] per mile. So I could go 100mph in a 65 zone for $0.35, but it'll add up real fast, and cruising at 79 in a 65 for your 20 mile commute would cost .14202=$5.60/day or $1400 per year. Actually higher penalties than now, since most people wouldn't get caught even once per year, and a 79mph ticket might be $200 in comparison. So it'd provide a solid deterrence.

Yet, prison does still serve purposes. First, while people rarely calculate the exact rates of [getting caught] and [getting convicted] and then calculating the odds vs the payoff, the general concept of wanting to avoid the criminal justice system is enough that many people act to avoid it. So, it's a general. nonspecific deterrence, and it needs people getting imprisoned to maintain that.

Perhaps more importantly, it does a very specific type of deterrence. For the sample of people who have been convicted of a crime, it ensures that they won't be out and available to do it again while imprisoned, and will have paid disproportionately for their previous venture. So, this select group who have already demonstrated probability =1 for this crime, will be strongly deterred.

for that reason alone, I'd vote for keeping this perp off the streets for half a decade.

edit: error, clarity

It’s not as simple as violence = jail and non-violence = no jail. A person could still inflict a great deal of harm without physically administering it. Punishment is circumstantial.

If a person swats another person on a livestream should they go to jail? What about if a scammer wipes out the bank account of someone who is already poor and the anxiety causes them to commit suicide? What if someone’s life gets ruined by identity theft and it takes them years to recover? There’s lots of ways a person could ruin the lives of other people and inflict tons of damage while “non-violently” sitting behind a computer screen.

Why isn't it appropriate to "cage" someone for a seriously harmful, non-violent offense?

not saying I agree with these, but here's a couple of reasons:

* prison is part punishment - lose your freedom as a consequence of your crimes. Most probably relate to this.

* prison is to protect society from the individual - for non-violent crimes is this the optimal solution?

* prison is super expensive - will you pay extra taxes to keep this guy in jail?

* prison has a mixed record at best (and sometimes the opposite impact) at keeping people from re-offending or rehabilitating them - do you think there are programs in most/any prison tailored for white-collar tech crimes? Should there be when so few would benefit?

* Prison hurts society as a whole if the opportunity cost for the individual is high - Could this guy get a legit job, pay taxes, participate in the community?

I see the job of the legal system as weighing these factors (and more) to determine punishment. Every jurisdiction does that differently...

I'm certainly not suggesting that jailing people is always (or even often) the right course of action, but that some non-violent crimes are arguable more serious and harmful than some violent crimes, and ought to be punished accordingly.