> Deterrence is a complicated and delicate empirical question.
> The people do do commit crimes--not just violent ones--are
> not the only relevant group. They are, by definition, the
> failures of deterrence. One also has to consider those who
> might commit crimes, but don't.
OK, I'm down with ya so far, my friend . . .
> Current studies support the idea that most people obey the
> law because they think it's right rather than because of
> fear of punishment.
Yes, I think this is true, but impossibly difficult to convince the religious Get Tough on Crime Crue.
There is an incredibly large number of people that simply will not believe that people will act in a 'moral' fashion without fear of punishment -- whether the reward is 'earthly' or of this World.
> But some people are deterred from committing crimes, or worse
> crimes then they do commit, by fear of punishment. Just
> taking deterrence as to be the main goal of criminal
> justice, which it is not in our or any country,
And here is why I replied to this message.
What is supposed to be the goal? What is supposed to be the purpose? I constantly hear from Law and Order types of both the 'crude' and the 'sophisticated' varieties that deterrence *is* the justification for punishment. They may mealy-mouth some other pathetic 'moral' arguments, but when cornered, they will stand by deterrence as a good enough justification.
> once would have to look carefully at the evidence of who is
> deterred by what sort of bad consequences, and consider the
> costs of over- and under-deterring. This sort of analysis is
> virtually never done, partly because it is hard, and partly
> because criminal justice serves other goals and
> needs--partly retribution,
Right. But then why not just carry the fucking .44 magnum and blast the fucker yourself -- no need for courts, juries, blah, blah, blah... (unfortunately, I know people who would literally agree).
> and partly even less justifiable needs, such as suppressing
> the parts of the population that are its main object--the
> poor and minorities. --jks
Yeah, well, that is really where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? That *is* what law is actually designed for after all -- to control *these* people, no? And who are better candidates to control than those we'd rather not even acknowledge?
--
Joseph Noonan Houston, TX jfn1 at msc.com