The first two posts in this series are here and here.  In this concluding post, I will share some thoughts regarding the various mechanisms by which criminal law potentially enhances social trust.

Deterrence: The criminal law’s deterrent threats help to make people feel more secure.  It seems to be a matter of widely shared intuition, and not without basis, that the possibility of punishment will cause many individuals to think twice before harming or endangering others.  The difficulty with deterrence is this: just because the threat of some punishment tends to reduce the frequency of undesirable conduct or outcomes does not mean that the threat of more punishment will achieve further gains.  

As I discussed in my previous post, the job of criminal law is to reassure us that we will not be victimized when we leave the safety of our homes and families and engage with the wider world. Such reassurance is necessary for our economy to work and for us to be able to enjoy the individual freedoms so exalted by our culture. But the central dilemma of criminal law is this: criminal law and its enforcement not only function as sources of reassurance, but as threats in their own right—producers of fear that may undermine, rather than enhance, people’s sense of security and willingness to engage with the wider world. Every time the criminal-justice system acts against a citizen, it causes harm in some form or another. Viewing this harm, some will feel reassured—if the system, for instance, is seen as thereby deterring future harms—but others will feel frightened. Indeed, the very essence of deterrence is fright. There is no unalloyed good when the system acts. The bitter always accompanies the sweet.