But it’s not exactly an earth shattering revelation that sometimes the reason people don’t do illegal stuff because they’re afraid of punishment.
To elaborate on this, deterrence literature usually focuses on three separate aspects of punishment:
Severity of punishment
Certainty of punishment
Swiftness of punishment
The consensus is that certainty matters a lot, and severity matters much less. There's some research that suggests swiftness matters more than severity, too, or at least is a significant factor in deterring crime.
Short term, there's enough evidence that severe punishments don't do much to deter crime to support dramatically ratcheting back whatever punitive measures we're handing out. Long term, I could see ways to increase swiftness of punishment that wouldn't make the system less fair (e.g., significantly expand the capacity of the legal system so defendants can get quality representation much more quickly). What's really difficult is the certainty piece. It's hard to think of ways to make punishment more certain that wouldn't expand the already-ubiquitous surveillance state.
Yes, I'm not arguing severity vs certainty vs swiftness or whatever, just that punishment in general is a deterrent.
Swiftness btw is good in general not just for punishment. I have a friend who took about 8 years to be acquitted after being arrested in a protest. 8 years of your life spent in trials and under restriction is way too long, especially when you were acquitted anyways
Good point about how swiftness would help people wrongly accused of crimes, too. Note also that many people in your friend's situation would take a plea deal so they can get back to life (especially if they're in pretrial custody), leading to innocent people getting criminal records.
Agree with everything you've said, just wanted to add that contemporary attempts to increase certainty (mandatory minimums etc) have all leaned towards more severe punishment, in ways that risk unjust outcomes.
To elaborate on this, deterrence literature usually focuses on three separate aspects of punishment:
The consensus is that certainty matters a lot, and severity matters much less. There's some research that suggests swiftness matters more than severity, too, or at least is a significant factor in deterring crime.
Short term, there's enough evidence that severe punishments don't do much to deter crime to support dramatically ratcheting back whatever punitive measures we're handing out. Long term, I could see ways to increase swiftness of punishment that wouldn't make the system less fair (e.g., significantly expand the capacity of the legal system so defendants can get quality representation much more quickly). What's really difficult is the certainty piece. It's hard to think of ways to make punishment more certain that wouldn't expand the already-ubiquitous surveillance state.
Yes, I'm not arguing severity vs certainty vs swiftness or whatever, just that punishment in general is a deterrent.
Swiftness btw is good in general not just for punishment. I have a friend who took about 8 years to be acquitted after being arrested in a protest. 8 years of your life spent in trials and under restriction is way too long, especially when you were acquitted anyways
Good point about how swiftness would help people wrongly accused of crimes, too. Note also that many people in your friend's situation would take a plea deal so they can get back to life (especially if they're in pretrial custody), leading to innocent people getting criminal records.
Agree with everything you've said, just wanted to add that contemporary attempts to increase certainty (mandatory minimums etc) have all leaned towards more severe punishment, in ways that risk unjust outcomes.