Does punishment deter?

Blair's review of crime policy proposes more non-custodial sentences but not, generally, tougher punishments. It's probably an accident, but this has some economic justification, because tougher punishments might not deter.
The reason for this is simple. It's expensive to impose tough sentences; it costs around £40,000 a year to keep someone in stir, and £100,000 to build a prison cell.
Because it's costly to impose sentences, criminals might believe the government won't enforce them. And this expectation of less enforcement might raise crime, thus offsetting the tendency for tougher penalties to  deter it. This point was originally made by George Tsebelis, but it's expanded in this recent paper (pdf) by Rimawan Pradiptyo.
It's easy to see how there's a trade-off between punishment and enforcement. When sentences are long, prison overcrowding leads judges to let criminals off. In the 18th century when people could be hanged for trivial offences, juries were reluctant to convict. In Islamic law, serious  punishments are only inflicted after very high standards of proof are met.  By contrast, lighter punishments can be more rigorously enforced, because it's cost-effective for the enforcer to do so - look at speeding fines.
There's another way in which tough sentences can raise crime. Sending drug-dealers to prison for a long time raises the monopoly profits of other dealers, thus increasing incentives to deal.
These considerations suggest longer prison sentences might not be cost-effective, so the government is right to consider cheaper options which increase the probability of enforcement.
This doesn't, however, mean the review is entirely valid. For one thing, one form of cheap punishment - corporal punishment - is not even considered, despite its theoretical appeal. And for another, the spread of non-custodial sentences, use of special units for mentally ill prisoners, asset seizing and attempting to identify criminals in advance represents an extension of the illiberal managerialist-therapeutic state.

Comments

[Matt Munro]

Perhaps I'm being idealistic but should punishment be cost effective ? In an ideal world there would be no crime, no police, no legal system, no prisons and (best of all) no lawyers. There would be no need for taxes to pay for it all. We don't live in that ideal world and taxpayers have a resonable expectation that their money be spent on enforcing the laws that their elected representatives have passed.
The way that many people look at the cost of legal system is not in isolation but in relation to other public expenditure. If we are spending millions on wars, or the royal family, or benefits, none of which are cost effective, then why is an acceptable justification for not locking up criminals. For the average bod (and I include myself in that description) the fear of being mugged/burgled/having your car vandalised is a far more pressing concern that weighty moral and political arguments about some dictator in a far off country they probably couldn't find on a map. The perception at the moment (with some justification)is that it's open season on the car driving, wealth creating "middle classes" whilst the asbo generation and their chav parents are allowed to break the law with impunity.

[dearieme]

Madness. Outsource it to abroad. Indian Cell Centres. Johnny Foreigner'll soon teach them a lesson or two. Or Mull. Make them sit in the bloody rain on Mull.

[Will]

Society can set-off against the expenditure the costs saved by having someone who would otherwise be stealing kept out of the way.

[deanosaur]

Its hard to know exactly what will deter crime. Is it more effective to consistently fine all drug dealers, or execute one occassionally and release the rest?

Even if the later is a more effective deterent, shouldn't we concern ourselves more with equal justice?

[Chris Williams]

"this expectation of less enforcement might raise crime, thus offsetting the tendency for tougher penalties to deter it. This point was originally made by George Tsebelis,"

Wasn't it originally made by Beccaria?

[Sam]

Why does it cost 40 grand a year per prisoner? Can anyone point me at a sensible cost breakdown?

[dave heasman]

"Why does it cost 40 grand a year per prisoner? Can anyone point me at a sensible cost breakdown?"

Well it certainly isn't food or heating. I coulds point you to the Prison Officers' Association and its overtime rules.

[Roger Thornhill]

If punishment does not deter, then at least keep them out of circulation for a while. Then a while longer, then for good if necessary.

Criminals often lack the concept of consequence and have low impulse management. I do wonder if their upbringing has tipped what would otherwise be responsible citizens into habitual criminals or violent individuals.

Education at an early age I am sure can play a part but can you mend them later? I am not so sure.

That said, I find Labour's idea of UK-as-open-prison very disturbing for, in a twinkling of an eye, we could end up in a police state where we get a control order for not voting for an 'approved party'. The EU is itching to outlaw unapproved political organisations, btw.

[bishop hill]

The stocks. Bring back the stocks.

[Juno888]

Education at an early age I am sure can play a part but can you mend them later? I am not so sure.