> modern sentiment rather than actual moral reasoning To me, the phrases "modern sentiment" and "moral reasoning" describe the very similar things. That follo

> modern sentiment rather than actual moral reasoning To me, the phrases "modern sentiment" and "moral reasoning" describe the very similar things. That follows from the observation that beyond a certain point, deterrence has very little effect. That point is remarkably low. For most of us a traffic fine is enough. The additional deterrence provided by jail time is not that large. If you reason about it with the rigour your "moral reasoning" phrase suggests, a holiday at her majesties expense might even be welcome. (Actually, we know for a fact it is - people commit crimes to get into jail to be fed and housed.) For the rest of us it looks to me like it's not the jail time that's the deterrence, its the public record of the transgression and the resulting ostracism. The additional deterrence over minor stints in jail and a criminal record, for punishments like longer terms, barbed wire instead of jail farms, small cells, isolation and capital punishment are so small, they could well be a net negative cost to society. Their only positive contribution is to keep a possible repeat offender off the streets, but they also create repeat offenders by robbing of their ability to survive outside of jail. The evidence that Scandinavian like emphasis on rehabilitation over retribution reduces both crime and the cost of law enforcement is so strong, I consider irrefutable. Given all that, you have to wonder what is this thing you call "moral reasoning" that leads to the conclusion that strong deterrents are justified in some sense. It doesn't lead to maximising any Utilitarian measure. About the only thing it does seem to maximise is some individuals sentiment about what is morally right - modern or otherwise.