Exactly. This is a known variable in criminology. If you have very harsh punishment for low-end offenses, then punishment ceases to be a tool for deterrence.
For example, if you get caughtt with a bag of hand grenades and you get 3 years for possession of dangerous unregistered weaponry, alright, you may want to surrender at that point and take the 3y.
But if you get life in jail for that, you might as well try to kill the cop and flee, because either way, you're getting life in jail. (ignoring places with the death sentence in this hypothetical example).
Of course there are still other reasons to just surrender, e.g. morals, reputation, religious fear etc. But purely deterrence of punishment is gone.
I don't think it's terribly relevant in this case, but yeah in general, too harsh crimes for small offenses can actually lead a rational thinker to maximize instead of minimize additional crimes.
For example, if you get caughtt with a bag of hand grenades and you get 3 years for possession of dangerous unregistered weaponry, alright, you may want to surrender at that point and take the 3y.
But if you get life in jail for that, you might as well try to kill the cop and flee, because either way, you're getting life in jail. (ignoring places with the death sentence in this hypothetical example).
Of course there are still other reasons to just surrender, e.g. morals, reputation, religious fear etc. But purely deterrence of punishment is gone.
I don't think it's terribly relevant in this case, but yeah in general, too harsh crimes for small offenses can actually lead a rational thinker to maximize instead of minimize additional crimes.