Also known as:deterrent punishments · deterrence · punishment for deterrence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A sanction imposed to discourage the offender or others from committing similar violations in the future. The sanction may take the form of a fine, imprisonment, or other penalty calibrated to reduce the likelihood of repetition by the actor or by similarly situated persons.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Rule 11 Sanction for Delay Tactic
Edward filed a notice of removal in Sophia's wrongful-termination suit solely to postpone an imminent state trial. The court applied federal procedural rules in the diversity action. The decision served deterrent purposes by discouraging litigants from selecting forums based on procedural differences.
Sentencing Enhancement for Gain
A federal judge increased Demetrius Douglas's sentence after finding he had derived substantial pecuniary gain from a fraud scheme. The enhancement was imposed to deter both Douglas and other potential offenders from seeking financial benefit through similar crimes. The added prison term operated as deterrent punishment by removing the economic incentive for future violations.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Federal Rules
Model Codes
Restatements
Dictionaries
United States v. Booker543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Life Sentence for Juvenile Offender
A court sentenced a juvenile offender to life imprisonment without parole for a nonhomicide offense. The sentence was reviewed to determine whether it served legitimate goals of deterrence given the offender's age and prospects for reform. The court concluded that the punishment failed to provide meaningful deterrence and therefore violated constitutional limits.
Graham v. Florida560 U.S. 48, 59, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2021, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010)
Death Penalty for Aggravated Murder
A jury imposed the death penalty on a defendant convicted of murder accompanied by torture. The sentencing statute required the jury to consider whether the punishment would deter others from committing comparable crimes. The jury found that the ultimate sanction would provide general deterrence and therefore imposed it.
Gregg v. Georgia428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859
Impeachment Using Suppressed Statement
Prosecutors introduced a defendant's prior inconsistent statement to impeach his trial testimony even though the statement had been obtained in violation of Miranda. The court permitted the use solely for credibility purposes and not as substantive evidence of guilt. The limited admission preserved the truth-seeking function of the trial.
Harris v. New York401 U.S. 222 (1971)
Deadly Force Against Fleeing Felon
A police officer shot and killed a fleeing burglary suspect who posed no threat to officers or bystanders. The court held that the use of deadly force in these circumstances was unconstitutional. The ruling reinforced that lethal force is permissible only when necessary to protect public safety.
Tennessee v. Garner471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What is the primary purpose of deterrent punishment?+
Deterrent punishment aims to discourage the specific offender and similarly situated persons from committing future violations by making the consequences of misconduct sufficiently costly or severe.
How does Rule 11 use deterrent punishment in civil litigation?+
Rule 11 sanctions must be limited to what is needed to deter repetition of the sanctioned conduct or comparable conduct by others, and may include nonmonetary directives or payment of expenses incurred by the opposing party.
When may punitive damages serve as deterrent punishment?+
Punitive damages may serve deterrent punishment when they are not grossly excessive in relation to the state's legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence, and when they bear a reasonable relationship to the harm caused.
424 U.S. 1 (1976)Legislation and Regulation
…kind of political activity" in order to insure that the voters are fully informed and to achieve through publicity the maximum deterrence to corruption and undue influence possible. The provision is responsive to the legitimate fear that efforts would be made, as they had been in the past, to avoid the disclosure requirements…