Final answer:
Aggravating factors are considerations that can lead to a harsher criminal penalty, often weighed against mitigating factors during sentencing. Landmark cases like Proffitt v. Florida and Apprendi v. New Jersey clarify their legal applications. Deterrence effects from harsher penalties are mixed, with some successes in reducing crime and others, like Scared Straight, having the opposite effect.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aggravating factors are considerations that can lead to an increased or more serious penalty for a crime. In legal contexts such as the sentencing phase of a criminal trial, these factors are weighed against any mitigating factors in determining the severity of the sentence. In Proffitt v. Florida, the Supreme Court upheld a death penalty statute that mandated such a comparison to ensure the constitutionality of the death sentence.
Another landmark case, Apprendi v. New Jersey, established that any fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be considered by a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Factors that may be considered aggravating include the defendant's criminal history, the heinousness of the crime, and whether the crime was committed in a manner that posed a threat to public safety or involved multiple victims.
While the understanding of deterrence in sentencing is complex, laws that create stronger penalties can have a deterrent effect. For example, when gun crime sentences were lengthened, gun crime was reduced by 5%. However, not all deterrent methods are successful; programs like Scared Straight have actually been associated with an increase in crime among youths.