Deterrence

When people debate what type of sentences should be given to criminals in the United States, it seems many in criminology suggest that 'harsh' sentences do not deter. Sentences which might be regarded as retributive or used for deterrence are said to be ineffective at what we should really be seeking, which is deterrence and/or 'rehabilitation'. They say that criminals are generally not so calculating as to consider the possible punishment for their actions. A crime which will receive two years in jail will not be avoided more than if the same crime will receive twenty years in jail. Criminals commit crime, largely disregarding the potential sentence(s) against them.

People who talk like this seem to be limiting their thought to the slice of humans who are criminals now. Those arguing for lesser or less-costly sentences (e.g., community service instead of jail time)--which also tend to be less scary--assume that those who are calculating are not committing that many crimes. This suggests that the 'harsh' sentences in place in the US are deterring, quite effectively, one significant part of the population--those who calculate. If lesser sentences were imposed, it would seem that we would still not deter many non-calculating individuals, but we would deter fewer calculating people who, e.g., would be willing to clean a highway if caught speeding but who would not risk being sent to jail for speeding.

Policy decisions about sentencing and deterrence need to take into consideration new groups of people who will commit crime under new practices.