CMV: We actually shouldn't have harsher penalties for crimes

CW: Mentions of violent crime, sex crimes, CSA, etc. (nothing graphic); capital punishment

I very, very often see a sentiment online, specifically when it comes to sex crimes or particularly gruesome crimes, that we should impose harsher penalties. "Rapists should be castrated" is the one that immediately comes to mind.

But the severity of sentencing doesn't actually deter criminals from committing crimes. There is a concept in criminology called "marginal deterrence," which basically just says that when the penalty for a lesser crime (e.g., rape) approaches the penalty for a more severe crime (e.g., murder), the perpetrator's incentive to stop short of the more severe crime shrinks. If rape and murder carry the same sentence, killing the witness/victim no longer carries much of an additional cost.

Now before I go any further, I want to say that I don't view rape as a "lesser" crime necessarily. I am a survivor of sexual violence myself, and it's not something I would wish on anyone. I would like to see justice for survivors and I would like to see a world where this is not such a pervasive problem. I just don't think that harsher penalties are the solution. I am a SURVIVOR, I am alive and well, and that is a big deal!

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided [Kennedy v. Louisiana](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/407/), which struck down the death penalty for child sexual assault when the victims survive. The majority opinion stated that the death penalty may not result in better enforcement, *and* might actually add to the risk of children/survivors not reporting their abuse, especially if he is a family member. They also said that by making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a state may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill his victim.

Criminal justice reform groups largely agree. I will acknowledge the bias they hold, of course, but many of them are very credible. [Vera.org](https://www.vera.org/publications/a-new-paradigm-for-sentencing-in-the-united-states) notes that severe sentences do not deter crime, and retribution often does not help survivors of crime heal. The United States has the highest prison population in the developed world, and it hasn't improved our crime rates - in fact, all we really have to show for it is overpopulated prisons. I'm not going to make the leap to assuming our high crime rates are caused by our punishments for it, because the evidence isn't there. But we CAN make the claim that [harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent](https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/research-offers-no-evidence-support-tougher-sentencing) for committing crimes.

As a slight counterpoint: The [certainty of punishment is an effective deterrent](https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/html-publications/reconceptualising-the-effectiveness-of-sentencing-four-perspectives/). It is definitely a problem that so many people are not punished at all for these kinds of crimes, and there is obviously work that needs to be done there. But there isn't any evidence that more severe penalties would deter people who are already going to commit violent crimes.

EDIT: Nowhere have I said that we shouldn't have consequences for crimes. As a commenter stated, a 20-year sentence with a proper reform and rehab program has been shown to be very effective, and I fully support a sentence like this. What I wouldn't support is more severe/capital punishments.