Deterrence and retribution as motives for supporting punitive public policies

Punitive policies such as migrant detention and benefits sanctions are growing in popularity. Politicians claim that the threat of harsher punishment deters undesired behavior, yet much evidence suggests that this is incorrect. Why, then, is it popular with voters? Building on literature from crime and punishment, I use vignette experiments in the UK to test whether this is because they believe that punishment acts as a deterrent, or because they view it as retribution for immoral behavior. Respondents rated the likelihood of desired behavior from hypothetical migrants and benefits claimants, and from themselves, in response to punishments of varying severity. They believed that some punishment had a deterrent effect but harsher penalties had little further payoff. Punishment was supported because migrants and benefits claimants fail to live up to people’s behavioral standards, particularly amongst authoritarians. Thus punitive measures enact retribution against outgroups, reinforcing moral boundaries and a rule-bound, orderly society.