Does Punishment Work?

You'll remember that in July 2004 I posted a couple times about punishment:

Do Heavy Guideline Sentences or Mandatory Minimums Work?

Continuing the Punishment Discussion

Someone recently left a comment on the latter of these asking: "I would like to make a question: in your opinion, is punishment deterrent to crime?"

At the risk of repeating myself, yes, I believe that punishment acts as a deterrent. I don't have any scientific proof of this but through observation and discussion with many of my clients I can tell you that the examples I would offer would be the firearm possession statutes. Once the fact that heavy punishment follows possession of a firearm as a felon or possession of a firearm and drugs at the same time sinks in these activities are avoided. As well, I believe - again without proof - that there is probably a fair portion of drug suppliers that won't touch crack because they realize the punishment difference between crack and powder.

Of course, there is a range of reasons why these punishments deter certain activities. One is that there are few crimes which are implicated and it sinks in that if the criminal actor is going to be risk averse he needs to avoid these specific activities. A second is that the punishments are out of proportion. They are so heavy that when a cost-benefit analysis is done most everyone realizes that it is just plain dumb to have a firearm around drugs or to deal in a specific form of a drug when profit can just as easily be made selling a different sort. A third is that the punishment is widely publicized and known; a massive punishment doesn't deter if there is no notice.

I don't think this can be applied on a larger scale (for the reasons discussed in the second post above); however, for a limited class of charges it can be very effective. On the other hand, it also leads to some very unbalanced and unjust sentencing based upon arbitrary factors (ie crack v. powder).