Isn’t that just for “crime of passion” type offenses?

Surely the penalty for murder would mean something if your business is murder, just like taxpayer bailouts affect your appetite for risk at an investment bank.

Anyone interested in the topic should take a look at _When Brute Force Fails_, by Mark Kleiman[1].

Briefly, a drug policy guy makes the case that "swift and certain" punishment with pretty usually not very severe outcomes does a lot better as deterrence than what we do now.

There's a lot to digest, and I don't think anyone is going to agree with all of it - he gores a lot of oxen. But it is meticulously researched and reasoned, and hard for this non-policy professional to argue with. Really worth at least borrowing at the library for folks who like grappling with reality at a policy level.

Mark was also a prolific blogger who died recently. I didn't know him, but did read his blog.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/When-Brute-Force-Fails-Punishment/dp/...

I would suggest reading through this empirical analysis in its entirety

https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/7#132

Studies have shown that extremely harsh penalties have minimal deterrence effects compared to moderately harsh penalties. More specifically, they advocate for a response function with a gradually decreasing gradient. Unfortunately, they have no recommendations as to what makes for a "moderately harsh" penalty, and they even acknowledge that some studies have shown deterrence effects from policies such as California's 3-strikes law.

The studies I've seen failed to take into account that the difference between no penalty (not getting caught) and one year in prison is (usually much) greater than the difference between N and N+1 years, never mind more subtle issues.

Or, as biztos brings up, mostly looked at criminals who weren't making a considered decision in the first place.