ABSTRACT
This chapter clarifies the leading theories of deterrence to determine their promise and potential problems. Deterrence theories of punishment claim that the general justification of punishment is deterrence. Deterrence proponents argue that a key feature of punishment should be its ability to make crime less frequent, if not end. A punishment that merely harmed criminals and lacked any clear beneficial effects may even be seen as cruel. Deterrent punishments can take several forms, such as general or specific deterrence. General deterrence is often understood as the public threat of punishment and specific deterrence as the individual’s experience of punishment. Deterrence is about crime reduction, but not all crime reduction is evidence of deterrence. The problem most commonly associated with deterrence is the problem of punishing the innocent: deterrence should be rejected because it could justify the punishment of innocent persons. Deterrence proponents might reply that its aim is to reduce criminal activity by rendering it sufficiently unattractive.
