>But in general, if you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proofs. To argue against mathematics (in this case, game theory and evolutionary biology) is an extraordinary claim.
To argue that humans (and criminals in particular) behave rationally is a far more extraordinary claim. I believe in using evidence over theory (much like in medicine - see the use of blood-thinning drugs after heart attacks) - and the (admittedly imperfect) evidence we have is that prison sentences are ineffective in preventing future crime.
I see you gave up defending thousands of times less criticism of brutal dictators and nazi racist hatred propaganda. (See previous examples if you want to touch that.)
There are afaik papers that discuss different evolutionary strategies for animals of different social status in groups. In some level, behaviour with so big influences on fitness generally makes sense in game theory.
It would be interesting to see support for the claims about sentence length not influencing behaviour? I've only heard claims, bever seen a good overview of the research. (As I wrote above, not or drunk idiots getting into fights.)
To argue that humans (and criminals in particular) behave rationally is a far more extraordinary claim. I believe in using evidence over theory (much like in medicine - see the use of blood-thinning drugs after heart attacks) - and the (admittedly imperfect) evidence we have is that prison sentences are ineffective in preventing future crime.