Well, look, this has long been debated in legal circles. I've spent time in a courtroom, as have you. I've taken part in prosecution and defence. My general belief, and the belief of many, I would suggest, is that general and specific deterrence is not only used regularly and routinely every day in a courtroom, but also that it does have effect, as does the reporting of it for general deterrence. Upon hearing that a stiffer penalty, a period of incarceration, could result, individuals who might be similarly inclined may be impacted
How do we measure that to a nicety? In many cases, it is very much based on how people themselves react and what they say about the impact that had on them: whether they were going to bring a gun to a robbery, for example; whether, after having already been convicted of a similar offence, they were going to go out and commit that offence again upon fear of facing a stiffer penalty.
I suspect that for you and I, while we may disagree on a subject matter, this isn't going to be resolved any time soon. We are going to continue to have this debate.