3 ms·

Here's the flaw in your argument against the necessity of deterrence: If a policy effectively prevents a targeted category of people from becoming criminals, t

by csense 14y ago

Here's the flaw in your argument against the necessity of deterrence: If a policy effectively prevents a targeted category of people from becoming criminals, then most criminals won't be from that targeted category. Say p ~ 10% of people either don't think about the consequences of their actions or don't care whether they go to jail. Say q ~ 90% do care about the consequences of their actions and do care whether they go to jail. Under a system where deterrence is a strong element, most criminals will be from p. But remove the deterrent, and you'll start seeing more criminals from q.

brianchu 14y ago
Let me clarify. I did not say that deterrence is utterly without use. When I said that there is a problem with deterrence, I meant that the current state of deterrence in our justice system is broken. There is a mistaken belief that more punishment necessarily entails greater deterrence, which is many times not the case. There is really a threshold when it comes to deterrence. There is very little to no deterrent effect of the death penalty vs. life without parole, as others have posted here. In fact, I personally find it hard to believe that a life sentence versus, say, 50 years in prison, has any additional deterrent effect for something like murder. The rational 90% would still be adequately deterred.