The search for improved methods of crime control is endless. What are the assumptions on which the theory of criminal deterrence is based? Are these assumptions valid? What are the hidden implications of criminal deterrence theory? Is it wise to continue to devote society's energies to the fight against crime with deterrence as our guide? Criminal deterrence has been divided into two categories, prevention and deterrence, with each of these categories further divided into two subcategories, special and general. In a broad sense, a deterrent term means anything that exerts a preventive force against crime. Usually, but not necessarily, we are interested in the preventive effects of crime-fighting measures introduced by law enforcement agencies. In this case, interest in the general dissuasive effectiveness of these measures focuses on their preventive effectiveness against crime, whatever the means used. prevention is achieved. Accordingly, a person considering committing a crime would undertake a cost-benefit analysis and only carry out their criminal plan if the potential benefits sufficiently exceed the expected costs. Besides theorists, courts have adopted the rational actor model to justify the imposition of certain punishments, particularly the death penalty for the crime of murder. According to general deterrence theory, people are punished for violating criminal law in order to serve as an object lesson to the perpetrators. the rest of society. Society, according to the theory, thus transmits the following message. It is wrong to behave in a certain way, and if a person behaves in one of these ways and does not follow the law, society will punish them accordingly. The expression of society's disapproval is pu...... middle of paper ......ty. Deterrence theory condones human sacrifice and, therefore, victimization acquires a certain degree of social utility. In conclusion, for too long, criminal deterrence theory has been a small tail wagging a very big dog. It is more appropriate to focus on the perceived legitimacy of the social order and how this perception can be generated and reinforced. The maintenance of social order cannot be attributed to the effectiveness of threats of punishment alone. A useful lesson can be learned from the habit-forming effects of the criminal law: experience suggests that most members of society may be law-abiding because they recognize the benefits of the social order, not because They fear being apprehended and punished for violating criminal law. The legitimacy of social order and its impact on crime therefore deserves further research, examination and attention..