I see no way to create this gradation other than by assigning different punishment to different offenses, in which case we are back to where we started.
A more consistent model would be “what if there is a maximum level of punishment beyond which there is not further reduction in crime rates, and this level is entirely too low to the victim’s liking?” When stated this way, the answer is obvious: most people would adjust their expectation of a just punishment to fit that prescribed by the law. This has happened over the ages in nearly every society already (the adjustment, not the punishment optimization), in one direction or another.
For example, capital punishment used to be dispensed rather freely not that long ago. On the other hand, swindling was not a crime until rather recently, and often still isn’t. Societies adjust to what the law says, and change the law when there is enough support, however imperfectly.
Given this self-adjustment of expectations of a just punishment, all that remains from your question is “how to find the optimal level of punishment for a given offense?” A zero-punishment offense would be considered an immoral act, all the rest would be forms of infractions/civil offences/crimes.
Least convenient possible word: define “crime” as that which is punished by present laws. Or use another, punishment-independent, definition (enumeration). Or, allow zero penalty to be included in the criminal code, so crime would still be technically forbidden, but the punishment for any crime would be no action.
By present I meant “as now”, in contrast to “as in the hypothetical scenario”. When you consider two sets of laws, you have at least two meanings to choose from...
There is nothing wrong with the consistency. At least not in principle. A crime could still be defined as a crime and the punishment could go towards zero asymptotically.
Your assumptions are not just unrealistic, they do not appear to be self-consistent, which is much worse.
“Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.” If you abolish punishment, you abolish crime, however silly it sounds. There is no longer a distinction between immoral and illegal. The “crime rate” would be trivially zero. The “moral offense” rate would be hard to calculate without restoring some gradation of immorality, otherwise being rude to a person has the same weight as killing them.
I see no way to create this gradation other than by assigning different punishment to different offenses, in which case we are back to where we started.
A more consistent model would be “what if there is a maximum level of punishment beyond which there is not further reduction in crime rates, and this level is entirely too low to the victim’s liking?” When stated this way, the answer is obvious: most people would adjust their expectation of a just punishment to fit that prescribed by the law. This has happened over the ages in nearly every society already (the adjustment, not the punishment optimization), in one direction or another.
For example, capital punishment used to be dispensed rather freely not that long ago. On the other hand, swindling was not a crime until rather recently, and often still isn’t. Societies adjust to what the law says, and change the law when there is enough support, however imperfectly.
Given this self-adjustment of expectations of a just punishment, all that remains from your question is “how to find the optimal level of punishment for a given offense?” A zero-punishment offense would be considered an immoral act, all the rest would be forms of infractions/civil offences/crimes.
Least convenient possible word: define “crime” as that which is punished by present laws. Or use another, punishment-independent, definition (enumeration). Or, allow zero penalty to be included in the criminal code, so crime would still be technically forbidden, but the punishment for any crime would be no action.
By present I meant “as now”, in contrast to “as in the hypothetical scenario”. When you consider two sets of laws, you have at least two meanings to choose from...
I agree this is LCPW and rules out the solution of criminalizing the act of moving next door to one’s crime’s victims without having been punished.
There is nothing wrong with the consistency. At least not in principle. A crime could still be defined as a crime and the punishment could go towards zero asymptotically.