The claim was “at least some deterrent effect,” not “strong deterrence.” I don’t have to model a 100% act utilitarian to support the claim I actually made.
I am not convinced that partial “insurance” would diminish other reasons not to commit fraud. In my own field (law), arguing for a lesser sentence because a charity acted to cover a fraction of your victim’s losses[1] is just going to anger the sentencing judge. And as explained in my footnote above, the “insurers” could buy subrogation rights from the victims to the extent of the repayment and stand in their shoes to ensure civil consequences.
“Crazed people with nothing to lose” are unlikely to be meaningfully less crazed because the fraudster’s bankruptcy estate recovered (e.g.) 75% rather than 70% of their losses. Same for other social consequences. At some point, the legal, social, and other consequences for scamming your victims don’t meaningfully increase with further increases in the amount that your primary victims ultimately lose.
Although I haven’t studied this, I suspect that the base rate of charity-giving fraudsters who give all—or even most—of the amounts they steal from their victims to charity is pretty low.
The claim was “at least some deterrent effect,” not “strong deterrence.” I don’t have to model a 100% act utilitarian to support the claim I actually made.
I am not convinced that partial “insurance” would diminish other reasons not to commit fraud. In my own field (law), arguing for a lesser sentence because a charity acted to cover a fraction of your victim’s losses[1] is just going to anger the sentencing judge. And as explained in my footnote above, the “insurers” could buy subrogation rights from the victims to the extent of the repayment and stand in their shoes to ensure civil consequences.
“Crazed people with nothing to lose” are unlikely to be meaningfully less crazed because the fraudster’s bankruptcy estate recovered (e.g.) 75% rather than 70% of their losses. Same for other social consequences. At some point, the legal, social, and other consequences for scamming your victims don’t meaningfully increase with further increases in the amount that your primary victims ultimately lose.
Although I haven’t studied this, I suspect that the base rate of charity-giving fraudsters who give all—or even most—of the amounts they steal from their victims to charity is pretty low.