https://betonit.substack.com/p/abusers-give-vice-a-bad-name
While arguing for legalization of drugs (essay linked above), Bryan Caplan argues for "harsh, swift, and sure" punishment for abusers (by which he seems to mean people who act anti-socially as an adjunct to their drug use, such as committing theft, setting up tent cities in public places, and the like, not punishment directly for use of drugs).
While I am also a staunch advocate of legalization, I have some concerns about his prescription for how to treat abusers.
Is mandatory punishment better than mandatory treatment? Is it more effective at ending the abuse that leads to the anti-social behaviors? Does it have fewer negative side effects on the individual? Is it more cost-effective?
Is it possible to enact a policy of "harsh, swift, and certain" punishment (of any crime) without incentivizing police and prosecutorial abuse, undermining due process rights, encouraging overpunishment, and risking an increase in the unjust punishment of innocent suspects? Does the concept of "harsh, swift, and sure" fall into the realm of ideal theory rather than recognizing likely problems in real world implementation?
Overall, is a "harsh, swift, and sure" approach to crime, in general, clearly either a utilitarian or libertarian approach? (Recognizing, of course, that broadly speaking, deterring and punishing crime are legitimate concepts in both lines of thought.)