In this paradigm it would be a threat, yes. The distinction here is “actions that make sense whether or not the target changes their behavior in response” vs “actions that only make sense if you expect the target to change their behavior in response”. If you do not want killers to be a danger outside of Japan, it makes sense to send them to Japan even if you know that they are not going to kill any less as a result of this policy. However, Golarion crucifying non tax payers only makes sense if more people will pay taxes out of fear of crucifixion; if they do not, Golarion gains nothing and is out the cost of some wood and nails.
In the ultimatum game, refusing offers below 50% leaves you worse off if your opponent doesn’t respond to this by giving you 50%.
In this paradigm it would be a threat, yes. The distinction here is “actions that make sense whether or not the target changes their behavior in response” vs “actions that only make sense if you expect the target to change their behavior in response”. If you do not want killers to be a danger outside of Japan, it makes sense to send them to Japan even if you know that they are not going to kill any less as a result of this policy. However, Golarion crucifying non tax payers only makes sense if more people will pay taxes out of fear of crucifixion; if they do not, Golarion gains nothing and is out the cost of some wood and nails.
In the ultimatum game, refusing offers below 50% leaves you worse off if your opponent doesn’t respond to this by giving you 50%.