ABSTRACT
Criminal trials for atrocity crimes like genocide are believed by some observers to prevent genocide through deterrence. This chapter deals with the case for deterrence, and begins with a brief discussion of what sociologists call "general deterrence", followed by an analysis of the pro-deterrence position. It presents the case against trials leading to effective genocide prevention through deterrence by examining prima facie empirical evidence that seems to suggest that trials do not lead to deterrence, and that perpetrators either behave irrationally or behave according to a skewed rationality such that the threat of punishment at trial is neutralized. Criminologists and sociolegal scholars have spent decades testing whether the threat of punishment deters crime at the domestic level. The chapter concludes with a brief assessment of what critical challenges face the role of trials in wider genocide prevention strategies and the probability of progress toward effective genocide prevention through deterrence as a result of criminal trials.
