9. The Limits and Perils of Punishment

One of the most familiar arguments put forward to justify punishment involves the claim that it tends to reduce crime – to make us safer. Earlier chapters have reviewed the several mechanisms by which it is believed this might be brought about. The idea of deterrence has sometimes been thought to be of special importance here because the threat of punishment, unlike rehabilitation and incapacitation, is supposed to have its effect on everyone – not just the relatively few people who are convicted and punished. But throughout the discussion, a sceptical position has been taken: perhaps punishment or its threats tends to reduce crime to a much lesser extent than is often supposed. In particular, there are reasons to doubt that deterrence is as effective as its proponents claim. It has been argued that reliance on fear of punishment to restrain criminal behaviour is unwise, likely to lead to poor policy decisions and to injustices in particular cases through disproportionate punishment (Chapter 5). Even if punishment did have the effects that deterrence theorists claim for it, it has other effects besides that may undermine its potential to reduce offending.