Deterrence

Deterrence is a utilitarian theory of punishment that aims to prevent crime by deterring potential criminals with heavy or highly visible consequences. According to a Pew report, “increased use of incarceration accounted for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop in the 1990s,” and, the report suggests, the country’s reached a “tipping point” where relying on more incarceration will no longer improve results.

Criticisms

Murray N. Rothbard had several criticisms of deterrence based on its injustice and lack of proportionality.

On the lack of proportionality:

"If there were no punishment for crime at all, a great number of people would commit petty theft, such as stealing fruit from a fruit-stand. On the other hand, most people have a far greater built-in inner objection to themselves committing murder than they have to petty shoplifting, and would be far less apt to commit the grosser crime. Therefore, if the object of punishment is to deter from crime, then a far greater punishment would be required for preventing shoplifting than for preventing murder, a system that goes against most people's ethical standards. As a result, with deterrence as the criterion there would have to be stringent capital punishment for petty thievery--for the theft of bubble gum--while murderers might only incur the penalty of a few months in jail."

On its injustice:

"A classic critique of the deterrence principle is that, if deterrence were our sole criterion, it would be perfectly proper for the police or courts to execute publicly for a crime someone whom they know to be innocent, but whom they had convinced the public was guilty. The knowing execution of an innocent man--provided, of course, that the knowledge can be kept secret--would exert a deterrence effect just as fully as the execution of the guilty."