Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
On reddit , there was a detailed comment with citations that there is little evidence that increasing the severity of punishment is more effective at deterrence. Here is the comment
And also that certainty of getting caught in conjunction with certainty of punishment as well as somewhat severity is a better deterrent. Obviously in many cases policies increasing the likelihood of getting caught would require some level of privacy invasion of people. Is there a better solution that doesn't involve punishments at all as a general deterrence ? Are there better motivators that are generally useful ?
Edit: Historical or current examples would be appreciated as well
As an interested non-expert I offer the following as no expert contributor has answered, to date:
While the meaning of the phrase "deprivation of life" is clear, "deprivation of liberty" is very elastic – ranging from solitary confinement in an unsanitary dungeon at one extreme, to the comparatively mild restriction of access to some situation/service/facility etc. such as “No, you can’t enter the restaurant without dress we approve”.
Bearing that in mind, I can think of two alternative approaches to deterrence:
When restriction of access is not severe enough to constitute “deprivation of liberty”, one can envision a system in which restrictions of access for comparatively minor infractions can be cancelled in response to adequate compensating actions by the transgressor. Starting from a zero-tolerance approach would allow minor lawbreakers to learn how to avoid reaching more severe deterrence measures.
In particular such an approach would prevent all but the determined criminal, those incapable of adequate self-control (and those falsely convicted) from having their life, relationships and potential future opportunities seriously disrupted by imprisonment and its consequences (including execution, of course).
Something quite like this already exists in China’s Social Credit System, https://joinhorizons.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/ but I fear it could easily become much too draconian and capable of unjustifiable abuse under China's current regime. (China is rumoured to be aiming to export the system to other countries too.)
For completeness: the other approach – much less effective - is the deterrent effect of a moral code, usually backed by religious injunctions.
I’ve often summarised my own experience of society as “people will do what they think they can get away with” (which, in those who are less transgressive, includes what their own moral code allows them "to get away with" – though my knowledge of family-related evangelicals in the US indicates that sheer hypocrisy often blinds them to their own transgressions).
A good historical example for how increased severity of punishment only leads to an increase in violence and not a decrease in crime rates is the so called "bloody codes". It's a historical term for the absurdly strict laws in colonial-era Britain.
They gave birth to the phrase "to be hanged for a chicken as well as an egg".
Similarly you can look at the increase in crime when the USA introduced alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century,and the reduction in crime after prohibition was abolished again.
This indicates that crime can be understood - to some degree - in terms of supply and demand.
I. E. interruption of drug supply will increase local market prices.
But: As long as there are addicted people who are "willing"/compelled to pay any price for drugs, this price increase does not reduce demand but it only raises local selling prices, thereby allowing dealers to also increase their profit margin.
That is why the Portuguese approach quickly showed success while the American "war on drugs" only leads to an escalating arms race between police and criminals.
Other crimes are not motivated by looking for obtaining something but instead are motivated by emotions.
Femicide is such a crime. The most likely murderer of a woman is a male partner or acquaintance.
more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femicide?wprov=sfla1
This links to issues like gender inequality and toxic masculinity, that could be addressed (among others) by improvements in boys upbringing.
To summarize:
Punishment turns crime into a game of chance.
If someone is desperate or ignorant enough, they will take even appalling levels of risk+impact in the hopes of hitting the slim chance to succeed.
Punishment also introduces unfairness: the impact of a specific punishment may differ between individuals. Once you're rich enough, a fine is no longer a punishment but merely a fee, akin to a billable service.
Reducing peoples will to do crime (by Healthcare, social programs, better upbringing etc) is a much more sustainable approach that is also more humane.
Due to the complex variety of crimes and motivations, there will always be some instances of crime that we cannot prevent, no matter what approach we take.
To address this, we need a social awareness and cultural practices that help us deal with this inevitability just like we already have practices for recognizing and handling grief over losing a loved one
