JAN 2 — The commentary “Little India riot: The dog that did not bark” (Dec 31) contended that we should not treat the symptoms and disregard the causes.

While I agree the causes are important, we should not disregard the need for deterrence. Punishment is an effective deterrent when it comes to crime, under which rioting falls. “Effective” must not be taken in the absolute sense. The question is: Does the criminal justice system deter crime?

The object of deterrence is to make the certainty and severity of punishment so great that it inhibits potential criminal actions.

Sociologists have disagreed with deterrence, arguing that many crimes were committed without any consideration for consequences. It was argued that urbanisation, density, poverty, age, race and other demographic factors exerted greater effect on crime rates than did the characteristics of the legal system.

However, studies challenge this view. Sociologist Jack Gibbs studied criminal homicide rates and related them to the certainty and severity of imprisonment. The certainty of imprisonment ranged between 21 per cent in South Carolina and South Dakota and 87 per cent in Utah. The severity of imprisonment ranged from a low of 24 months in Nevada to a high of 132 in North Dakota.

His conclusions were that states with above median-certainty and median-severity rates had lower homicide rates than states below the median. The homicide rate for low-certainty and low-severity states was three times greater than the average rate for high-certainty and high-severity states.

It was possible that the certainty of imprisonment could be more important than the severity of punishment in determining homicide rates, as there was conflicting evidence as to which of these variables was more influential. However, both in synergy reduced homicide rates even after controlling all other demographic variables.

Economists, in general, confirmed the findings whereby their general premise was if you increase the cost of something (crime), less of it will be consumed (less crime). Economist Gordon Tullock dismissed the idea that crimes of passion are not affected — it boils down to the cost to be paid for the product.

The point I wish to convey is: Make all the arrangements for a better life, but make it clear that the crime, in this case, rioting, will not be ameliorated or given any form of immunity because of poverty, hardship or emotional influence. — Today

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.