Punishment for the Sake of Deterrence is Justified

The authors strongly support the idea that deterrence punishment is reasonable, as people frequently follow the law after calculating the results of laws on specific criminal acts. Punishing perpetrators to prevent others from committing the same crime again will not guarantee that we will not commit any crime, but will certainly reduce the number of people committing the same crime in the future.

An important variation of the results-oriented approach is focusing on deterrence. It is reasonable to punish with deterrence if punishment prevents and / or prevents the criminal and other people from failing the law. The deterrence theory has been criticized as dealing with barbarians, not rational actors who can respond to moral reasons. The deterrent theory has also been criticized for allowing people not legally punished to be punished when they succeed in preventing others from breaking the law. Finally, the deterrence theory has been criticized for making the parameters of appropriate punish too broad, not to be given the punishment to prevent people from being justified.

Punish their tendency to recover or deter. Punishment is only for punishment (there is no deterrent or healing effect), it seems immoral to Utilitarians not only doing nothing in the case of suffering but also revenge. What do you think of Utilitarian penalty theory? As you can see, there are many opponents to it. Utilitarianism can be punished for reasons of rehabilitation and deterrence. 10 people think that rehabilitation will not function, deterrent will not be that good. He made this claim because there is no reliable evidence that the rehabilitation program can reduce the recidivism rate. According to Ten, the difference between letting an individual stop and rehabilitating an individual is that deterrents prevent that individual from committing a crime and rehabilitation prevents that individual from committing another crime.