This commentary is by Robert Sand of Woodstock. He is founder of the Center for Justice Reform at Vermont Law and Graduate School and adviser to the National Center on Restorative Justice.

Recently, a member of the Scott Administration testified that the public perceived the criminal justice system as all “carrots and no sticks.” While I generally understood that expression, I decided to look it up. After extensive research (OK, Wikipedia), I learned that one of the first uses was a 19th-century tale of a race between two donkey riders. One rider incentivized the donkey to move forward with a carrot. The other used a stick to lash the donkey. The donkey that was incentivized won.

The historical tale provides a useful metaphor for the criminal justice system. Incentivizing behaviors we want to see is a more effective method of influencing change than punishment. Even the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance recognizes that punishment is a lousy corrective and even worse deterrent. A 2016 BJA report has four takeaways relevant for Vermont:

1. The certainty of being caught is a more powerful deterrent than the punishment.

2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t an effective way to deter crime.

3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.

4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.

Since sticks are lousy deterrents, let’s increase our use of carrots if we want to see positive changes in behavior. And to be clear, this is not a call for an end to enforcement; a strong police presence, especially when officers engage meaningfully with community members, is an effective deterrent and should be supported even as we scrutinize the efficacy of punishment.

What are some ways to incentive pro-social behavior? Well, as they say, cash is king. What if we paid or otherwise incentivized people for being responsible members of the community instead of trying to punish our way out of these challenges? What might this look like? Something like this: Imagine if the merchants of Church Street in Burlington contributed a modest monthly sum to a community resilience fund. This fund would be used to incentivize people in need of housing, mental health services and/or a safe place to address substance use disorder to go to a designated location where those services would be provided. Simply showing up, a behavior we want to incentivize, would yield a cash payment or other benefit. Showing up on consecutive days would yield an increased benefit. Showing up drug free would yield even more. Not only would people in need of services begin to develop positive patterns of behavior and community support systems, but Church Street and City Hall Park would be more fun places to visit and shop.

“Pay people simply to show up even if they are still using drugs?!?” Yes. The approach proposed here is a variation on an evidence-based treatment model called contingency management. Contingency management incentivizes abstinence. This proposal goes farther by bestowing benefits simply for showing up, perhaps with enhancements for negative drug tests.

Let’s keep in mind that when we incarcerate people, or call for an increase in punishment, we are implicitly saying, “Please spend more tax dollars on prisons.” Before we urge lawmakers to spend our money on more punishment, we should be pretty darn sure the enhanced costs support an approach that makes us safer. Fiscal frugality mandates only funding effective responses.

A helpful “thought exercise” is to pretend you are contemplating committing a crime and weighing the benefits of going forward with the offense against the risk of being caught and the severity of the penalty. “Let’s see, if I do this crime I will enjoy a particular benefit, but if I get caught, I might receive a harsh consequence that outweighs the benefit.” Exactly how many people engage in this careful balancing that is a core component of deterrence theory? Perhaps zero. The rationale of the cost-benefit analysis differs dramatically from the sudden, impulsive, irrational behavior that drives most crimes. More punishment does not make people more thoughtful about the possible consequences of their actions.

And here’s a tough question: If an incentive-based program yielded better results like safer communities, less visible drug use, and enhanced mental health care at less cost than incarceration, would we support it? Many people will have a visceral negative reaction to the idea of compensating people simply for showing up, especially those who continue to use drugs. Others, trapped by the sunk cost fallacy of continuing to invest in responses even failed ones, won’t abandon punishment since that is how we have always reacted to crime surges. Our tax dollars should fund programs and responses that make us safer and improve the lives of all Vermonters. If cash benefits for prosocial behavior is the path to enhanced safety, count me in. Calls for more punishment are inevitable in an election year. Calls for more effective responses need to be ongoing.

Punishment does not deter criminality, meaningful connection does. Developing responses that bring people into community and supportive services will yield vastly better outcomes than pushing them away and trying to punish our way to safety.