Deterrence (prevention) From Wikipedia
“One reason given to justify punishment is that it is a measure to prevent people from committing an offence – deterring previous offenders from re-offending, and preventing those who may be contemplating an offence they have not committed from actually committing it. This punishment is intended to be sufficient that people would choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment. The aim is to deter everyone in the community from committing offences.”
That having been explained for those stewards and racing commissioners who may have been in doubt, I submit that punishments imposed by Boards Of Stewards and Racing Commissions have been almost totally void of the effect necessary to promote deterrence. The key word in the paragraph above being “sufficient”. Adjudications forthcoming from both bodies have been insufficient to stem the tide of medication violations in particular or to promote overall respect for the rule book. Thus, many trainers are willing to commit the crime because they have no fear of the possible penalty. If imposed, it will be something they can work around or live with. That means, if you are a steward or racing commissioner, you have failed in your responsibility to deter these kinds of actions. Organizations within the industry and many individual commissions are in the process of considering removing the penalty determination from the Board Of Stewards and having them take it from the rule book. That is certainly a vote of confidence in their past work, isn’t it? I am sorry to have to say that the present day circumstances in thoroughbred horse racing have been created by the liberal and permissive attitudes of it’s regulating bodies. Those being Boards Of Stewards and members of racing commissions. Since the Governors of each of the racing states appoint racing commission members who in turn appoint some stewards and confer their approval on all stewards, it is a problem with political roots. Need I say any more?