They are not good at paying attention to future consequences. But paying attention to future consequences is essential if someone is to be deterred by the threat or even the imposition of a criminal punishment (Nagin, n.d.). In a study done by Lynch (1999) it was shown that in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's there was a noticeable increase in the rate of incarceration. An examination of the incarceration and crime data from 1972-1993 revealed that there was no evidence of deterrence at the collective level for the U.S. Additional analysis of cross-sectional crime and imprisonment trends for 1980 through 1991 also failed to offer any basic support for the deterrence hypothesis. This study showed that imprisonment does not deter most criminals. In fact, over the twenty-one year period examined, crime went up along with rates of incarceration. This indicates a need to rethink the position concerning the deterrent effects of penalties, and to consider the importance of causal theories that address the...

Some people may view punishment as very bad and something that they want to stay away from while others may not see the punishment as anything at all. This latter group will end up offending because the threat of punishment means nothing to them and thus does not work to deter them from offending. In the end the conclusion can be made that deterrence is only partially successful. It works in some cases but not in all and thus cannot be claimed to be universally effective.
References

Lynch, M.L. (1999). Beating a dead horse: Is there any basic empirical evidence for the deterrent effect of imprisonment? Crime, Law & Social Change. 31: 347 -- 362.

Nagin, D.S. (n.d.). Deterrence Chapter 4. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/40354_4.pdf