Lack of punishment incentivizes violating rules.
I
Tyson Gay, one of the best 100 and 200 meter sprinters of all-time, tested positive for banned substances in 2013. His suspension from events lasted one year and he was only stripped of medals earned one year prior to the doping conviction. Gay continued to compete after his ban and had successful races (1st in the 2015 World Relays and 6th in the 2015 World Championships).
II
Lance Armstrong, one of the best cyclists of all-time, admitted to knowingly using banned substances in 2013. He was stripped of all titles. He still currently operates a successful bicycle shop and has several semi-well-known sponsors for his podcast.
III
Individuals convicted of a DUI in Texas face the following offenses:
First offense
- Up to a $2,000 fine.
- Up to 180 days in jail upon conviction with three mandatory days.
- Loss of driver license up to a year.
Second offense
- Up to a $4,000 fine.
- One month to a year in jail upon conviction.
- Loss of driver license up to two years.
First offense
- A $10,000 fine.
- Two to 10 years in prison.
- Loss of driver license up to two year.
These fines do not include a state fine of $3,000, $4,500, or $6,000 assessed upon sentencing.
These punishments are too lax because the expected value of wrongdoing is often higher than the expected value of being caught and convicted.
The only way Gay and Armstrong could compete at the highest levels was by doping, and by competing in those tiers, sponsors threw gross amounts of money at each of them. When the USADA released their report on Armstrong, the sum total of sponsorships he lost was $75 million. His reported peak net worth was $125 million. In the end, he settled for $5 million (of course, there were significant legal costs along the way).
Drivers continue to risk driving under the influence primarily because, well, they're intoxicated. The risk of getting caught is fairly low (some estimate around 1 in 200) and the inconvenience and cost of getting an Uber to/from the venue is enough to deter responsible behavior.
The solution is simple: make the expected cost—both monetarily and socially—of wrongdoing so high that there is little to no considering going down the wrong path.
Some examples:
Changing the social ramifications of these types of wrongdoings is challenging. People understand the why of these acts—that won't go away or necessarily change. Changing the reaction to the act can change. Painting these people as selfish, heartless, corrupt, and/or evil can catch on if the campaign is sustained long enough with enough intensity.
Punishments should apply solely to "optional" actions and not those that are done for physical or mental well-being.
As an addendum, some deterrence theory:
The works of Beccaria, Bentham, and Becker led to a theory of criminal deterrence involving a three-pronged approach in which certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment work together to increase the cost of an action so that a rational person will determine that the cost outweighs the benefit.
Certainty applies to the likelihood of being caught. The threat of a severe punishment is not effective if there is no possibility of ever being caught.
Celerity applies to the speed of a consequence. A punishment imposed immediately after an offense is more effective than one that is imposed years after the offense.
Severity of punishment is a necessary component since a rational person might commit a crime that brings a benefit even if punishment is swift and sure when the punishment is insignificant. In addition, the punishment serves as an example to others in society so that everyone is aware that a certain action is unacceptable.
Under the economic theory of deterrence, an increase in the cost of crime should deter people fro committing the crime, and there is evidence that individuals who believe they are likely to be arrested and punished are less likely to commit a crime than those who do not expect to be captured or punished. To increase the cost, the government can increase the likelihood that a person will be caught, the speed with which a person receives a punishment, or the severity of that punishment.
Some of the punishments above are exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid with the eighth amendment, but what's cruel and unusual to one individual is justified and right to another. Of course, no innocent person should be punished per Blackstone, so some qualifications related to the wrongdoing must be established.
First, the act must be obvious and intentional with no question as to their guilt. A drunk driver obviously and intentionally got into the car, turned it on, and drove. There were numerous opportunities to not do so: scheduling an Uber to and from the location, having a designated driver, etc. Punishments are divided into gradations based on how intentional the act appears. When in doubt, the less severe option is applied.
Second, the accused cannot claim ignorance à la Gay or Rupp. There are obviously exceptions to this, but taking unknown substances and blaming it on the coach is not a valid excuse. The accused must take responsibility to ensure they are not breaking any rules. Proving they did their due diligence and still broke the rules may qualify for a less severe or no punishment.
Third, punishments can be made less severe if violators are willing to name others involved, if applicable. Financial incentives can even be offered. xcfan2233 offers a solution on the LetsRun thread LetsRun anti-doping challenge #1 - What can the sport do to clean itself up?:
Doping bans should be lifetime, and convicted dopers should have all their results/records wiped out and prize money should be paid back. This is the only way you can effectively disincentivize doping. If I embezzled money from my company, I would be arrested, disbarred from the industry, and would face fines. No idea why we accept cheaters/liars back into the mix sometimes as short as 2 years after the conviction (And give them cushy coaching/announcing jobs post retirement).
If you really want to get spicy, make it so convicted dopers can keep x% of prize money if they start turning on people. Agents, coaches, fellow dopers, the more names you bring down, the more you can keep. This is more ethically ambiguous, so I probably wouldn't propose this, but it would clean up the filth in this sport real quick once someone got popped.
There is plenty of literature out there on deterrence theory, defined as "he scholarship and practice of how threats or limited force by one party can convince another party to refrain from initiating some other course of action".
I won't discuss any of it here.
In sum, I'd implement the following "rules" into society: