Then I'm not sure what you mean by "deterrence". Both of the linked articles argue against increasing the severity of punishment, but they also say that the certainty of getting caught is a strong deterrent.
This doesn't seem to be in conflict with what the GP said ("supporting laws and politicians that catch and punish criminals effectively"). It seems to me that many people have a problem with thieves not being punished at all.
Most of the people I have read or heard advocate for "more effective handling of crime" are much bigger on the severity of the sentence, though I don't deny that many will mention both. The "N strikes and you're out" angle, for example, is all about the severity of the sentence once you reach N.
New HN commenter "smeeger" whose subthread we are in seems close to favoring violence as punishment for relatively minor crimes, for example.
Still, yes, things that significantly increased the likelihood of being caught and punished do seem like a good idea, and do not require sentencing being changed.
ive been commenting here since 2014 but have to constantly make new accounts because HN bans me for expressing problematic beliefs. the fact that this thread got through the filter feels like a miracle or a dream… you need to read more carefully. i used the word effectively for a very specific reason. even the insanely sympathetic and humane punishments on the books in western countries now would basically stop crime if they were applied and implemented properly. if punishment were actually likely. if prisons werent just boot camp for criminals. social clubs. prisoners emerge from prison emboldened, not humbled. our system is broken and it stays broken because people are crappy. recently i actually decided to stop caring because its so pointless.
oh and your hands are waving a lot more than mine… you clearly dont want to think too hard about this
Could you share some of this evidence?