What about an ever increasing rate of criminality? If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal, more importantly insufficient. And if the deterrent effect is insufficient then shouldn’t we try to find a better way by making use of modern science and data driven decision making?

> If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal

It's a multi-variable system. It could be that other conditions and effects override what is, in other circumstances, a solid deterrent.

Threat of long imprisonment works great on the guy who doesn't want to lose his cushy job and easy life. It doesn't work as well on someone with nothing and no hope of gaining anything.

Saying it doesn't serve as a deterrent for a certain class of individual is a fair statement, saying it doesn't work, full-stop is most certainly wrong.

My statement was that it is insufficient. It serves as a deterrent to some extent. But it’s not meaningful with respect to the ultimate goal. Have you ever decided not to do something because you could be imprisoned? There are psychopaths but I think they are in the minority, even here.

> If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal, more importantly insufficient.

is this actually true? as I understand it, we are well past the peak of criminal activity ( at least in the US).

The incarceration rate has declined in the past decade but I would guess that’s due to already having locked up a large proportion of the population as well as changes enforcement and prosecution. Weed is legal now, to take an obvious example of prosecutorial waste that’s been ameliorated.