How much of the rationale for punishment is rightly assigned to "deterrence" arguments?

Question

If we take our total rationale for a particular punishment (let us say, a fine of $500 for shoplifting) as having various objectives or rationales (vengeance, incapacitation, reduction of future violations by showing the example of the punishment to other citizens, etc.) how much of that rationale for that specific punishment is rightly afforded the objective of reducing such offenses future? Is the punishment intended to reduce the likelihood of similar violations in the future? What percentage of total rationale ought rightly be afforded deterrence?

Answer 1

If I understand your question correctly I would have to say that the fine may or may not deter the offender from a repeat offense. So I do not believe that there has been given any weight to the punishment for deterring a repeat offense. I think the fine or punishment is a direct and known consequence of bad behaviour. Antisocial and criminal activities have specific consequences depending on how the laws are enacted at the civic, state and national levels. A monetary fine will not insure deterrence however imprisonment will insure deterrence at least temporarily. I am not advocating imprisonment for shoplifting. I am assuming that shoplifting was just an example. I am just saying that monetary fines will support the legal establishment but not necessarily deter repeat offence. Hopefully I expressed myself clearly enough for you to understand my opinion.

Answer 2

depends on the punishment and the crime, shoplifting punishment is probably more for vengeance and incapaciation (if there is a jail sentence) rather than deterrence to other citizens, while capital punishment for treason would probably be mostly for reducing he likelihood of similar violations in the future

Answer 3

It is why we have and enforce laws,to deter crime. You could not reach a percentage of a crime. Every crime has too many variables to do that. Armed robbery is known to have a severe sentence and is not in the same category as a crime against nature(rape murder, something that is instinctively very wrong.)So people do not commit this crime because of its severe sentence.if shoplifting carried a 10 year minimum that crime would decrease. I say increase punishments severly and crime would slow. however it would go against our constitution (cruel and unusual punishment) my answer:no percentage no answer and stop wording **** where people cant understand you i am a criminal justice major and i think you are making an *** out of yourself by sounding that intelligent. (I work for the FBI)