The sentencing principle that regularly over-rides all others is general deterrence. It dictates that a severe punishment (often imprisonment) must be given to an offender so that other, potential offenders are deterred from offending. It differs from specific deterrence, which relates to encouraging a particular offender not to re-offend. When general deterrence is given priority, the factors personal to the offender take a back seat such that people of otherwise good character, with a lot going for them, and who are unlikely to re-offend, can still be imprisoned. Such cases are always very difficult from the defence perspective.
General deterrence presumes that potential offenders are; (a) aware of the severe punishments that have been imposed in previous cases, and (b) will go through a process of rational forethought before deciding not to offend because the consequences are too great. I am not alone in wondering whether general deterrence really works. Offences are typically committed by people who do not keep track of the latest sentences reported in the paper and who have deep-rooted problems with decision making and other life skills. Other offences occur in the heat of the moment when rationality is put to one side, if only very briefly, by otherwise sensible people. After many years of imposing severe punishments for certain offences, I doubt the official statistics show a significant reduction in offending. Further, I often wonder what becomes of those offenders imprisoned in the name of general deterrence whose own rehabilitation would have been best served by a different punishment. Does the system actually make criminals in those cases rather than deter others?
