Except all your assumptions are wrong.

Vicarious punishment is the worst method of behavior deterrence. People won't stop fare dodging out of a small amount, not even a huge amount, or even if almost all of fare dodgers were caught. They will just become selective and apply different strategies to dodge the fare. It's a fallacy to think that the existence of a punishment for a crime automatically decreases said crime incidence in the whole population. We know this to not be true (looking at abortion statistics over here).

Police presence is a deterrence, only and exclusively in those areas and time frames when they are present, and even then only partially (people still commit crimes, even when the police is present). We know that there's no magical patrol coverage that deters crime completely. People will just do the crime, when and where the police isn't looking and get creative about it. Not even permanent surveillance deters crime completely or permanently (UK's mass surveillance didn't even put a dent on their crime rates).

It might be true that some people who dodge fares can pay them. But to assume that it is not an undue financial pressure on some individuals is misguided and cruel. We already know what it needs to be done to reduce fare dodging, increase the service quality. When the value of the public transport is regarded as better than what's charged, people are less likely to try to dodge the fare. But if the service is de-funded, installations dirty and derelict, slow, infrequent and on top of all of that the police is there to fuck you for fare dodging instead of making it safe for all users. Then people will consider it not worth their money. Adjacent to this, student, commuters, elder, children, job-seekers and disability subsidies on transport also increase people's perception of the quality of the service. This all together reduces fare dodging way, way more than any punishment.

The NY Metro actually did it once, they cleaned the graffiti, repaired stations, fixed lightning and subsidized certain groups. It dropped not just the fare dodging but all crime inside the metro, faster than the state's crime rate drop overall. But Giuliani shelved the project eventually because subway is for poor people and poor people don't deserve quality services, apparently. Again, the cruelty seems to be the point.

1. It's a pretty solid assumption that may not apply to every single person that dodges fares

2. Police don't deter shit, this isn't a contentious point of debate. They just don't

3. See above

Bro, I just spent the past two weeks in Vienna Austria and Budapest Hungary.

Vienna especially has a very good subway system that can get you nearly anywhere in the city.

There are ticket kiosks everywhere.

There are no turnstiles.

You just purchase a ticket and go on. You can get anything from a 1 ride pass to a monthly pass.

Nobody checks tickets.

There are also trams that run above ground all over the city. Same thing.

There are kiosks on the tram, but nobody checks your ticket. And you can get 1 ride or 1 month tickets and anything in-between.

Budapest is "eastern Europe" where people are definitely poorer in general, but even there, there was nothing like what I am used to seeing in NYC. No police everywhere, no crime, and also, they don't check your transit tickets.

1. Generally, the issue of not being able to afford a ticket is an American phenomenon. Actual developed countries don't have the problems with homelessness or poverty that we have in the US.

2. Generally, dishonesty is a cultural issue. I had a German guy stay with us in the US for a few months. One time we were discussing what would happen if - for example - one were to pass a car on the right in Germany, what would the fine be? He didn't know, but not for the reason you'd expect. His reply was basically, "No, you must not do this, the car will move to the right to let you pass!". He simply could not fathom someone cruising in the left lane in Germany. And after visiting Austria, I cannot either. Cars DO actually move over to the right the instant they have passed a car. The left lane is kept open, even in heavy traffic. Full stop. Same with paying subway fares. They pay the fares. It is not even comprehensible to NOT pay the fares. They give you every opportunity to do the proper thing. They trust that you will do the right thing since that is so engrained into the cultural identity. Also, only a very small percentage of crime that is committed is not out of a place of desperation. If you have a well paying job, a strong government safety net, and a culture of following laws, people just generally behave. There is no need to have police standing around "deterring" people from commiting crimes.

3. see above.

Police only deter crime in their immediate area. I'm talking a radius of feet, not miles. Crime just moves to a different area. They are a less effective deterrent and more expensive than than a good camera system.

Police react to crime afterwards. The main things that prevent crime are money, respect, a sense of purpose, education, etc. A church, a basketball court, or an office building do more to deter crime than a police officer, and are much cheaper.