Concerns about crime have been the foundation for decades of get-tough policies aimed at deterring crime. The belief is that ever-greater punishment — by hiring more police, increasing prosecution, and toughening punishment — effectively promotes public safety through deterrence. A visible demonstration of this belief can be seen in the deployment of the National Guard to cities with alleged out-of-control crime problems. What, though, if deterrence is a myth?
The answer matters. Trends in government spending on deterrence-based approaches to crime reveal that the country has invested heavily in punishment. From 1982 to 2001, real (inflation-adjusted) expenditures on police, courts and corrections at federal, state and local governmental levels grew by 165%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Expenditures have continued to outstrip inflation, with the Bureau’s most recent report showing that, by 2017, total justice expenditures increased to $305 billion.
Tough-on-crime sentencing persists as the country’s primary solution for crime. Yet, there is little to show for it, save for greater burdens on taxpayers and, we argue, missed opportunities to effectively reduce crime.
This situation flies in the face of lawmaker commitments to evidence-based policy. For one thing, deterrence theory — which says that greater punishment certainty, severity, and celerity deters crime — does not actually require only investing in severe punishment. Cesare Beccaria, who articulated the classical view of deterrence over 250 years ago, understood that we can deter would-be offenders through other strategies, such as rewarding prosocial conduct. A related and important fact: Research provides little support for the notion that continuously investing in more severe punishment appreciably reduces crime.
The assumption that more or tougher legal punishments will appreciably or enduringly deter crime is, in short, largely a myth. Why? Deterrence does not just rest on punishment. It includes other conditions, like the certainty of punishment, the rewards of crime, and, as importantly, rewards of law-abiding behavior. Think here of individuals who cannot find gainful employment and need training or assistance to secure a job. They miss out on rewards that would make crime less appealing and, in turn, increase the deterrent effect of punishment.
Criminal justice policy platforms nationally persist in ignoring these other parts of the deterrence process. Consider this indicator: From 1971 to 2021, cities nationally devoted a greater proportion of their budgets to policing (increasing by 19%) and simultaneously devoted a smaller proportion to social services (decreasing by 12%).
What to do? Avoid the other myth that punishments cannot deter. Critics sometimes mistake the absence of research that demonstrates a robust deterrent effect of legal punishments with the possibility that, under certain conditions, these punishments can deter. We can avoid both myths by committing to policies that address all parts of the deterrence equation.
Daniel P. Mears is a distinguished research professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University. Mark C. Stafford is a professor of criminal justice and criminology at Texas State University. (Courtesy photos)
So, punish people who commit crime, but focus on achieving an optimal balance of both certain and severe punishment. In addition, focus on strengthening communities and creating jobs; these can generate rewards that lead to less need to rely on greater punishment to deter. A comprehensive approach that invests in deterrence from different directions is possible. Initiatives like Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, a community-based collaborative effort to combat violent crime, or community policing strategies that strengthen the ability of neighborhoods to protect themselves, show what creative approaches to deterrence can achieve.
A more effective crime prevention approach would be to target all of the causes of crime. Even in this case, though, deterrence can play a prominent role and showcases the common ground for uniting different political views about responding to crime. A well-tested theory of offending finds that stronger social bonds reduce criminal behavior. Efforts that increase these bonds can increase rewards of law-abiding behavior and make it easier to deter crime.
The myth of deterrence says that we need to punish more to decrease crime. Still another says that deterrence can’t be effective. Deterrence can work, but a smart-on-crime strategy requires the use of credible theory and research to devise policies that make us safer.
Daniel P. Mears is a distinguished research professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University. Mark C. Stafford is a professor of criminal justice and criminology at Texas State University. They are the authors of “Comprehensive Deterrence Theory: The Science and Policy of Punishment.”
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/11/30/commentary-crime-and-the-deterrence-myth/
