However, the main reason for the decline in the prestige of the consideration of deterrence in punishment stemmed from the understanding that there is no empirical evidence that harsher punishment contributes to deterrence (see, in this regard: the Goldberg Commission Report, at p. 12, and Oren Gazal-Eyal, "Deviation from the Appropriate Punishment Range," in: Sefer Dorit Beinisch, 539 and the references at p. 544, note 21 (Keren Azoulay, Itay Bar Siman Tov, Aharon Barak and Shahar Lifshitz eds. (2017).
In November 2015, the report of the Public Committee for Examining the Policy of Punishment and Treatment of Offenders, headed by the Honorable Justice (ret.) Dalia Dorner (hereinafter: the Dorner Commission Report) was published. The report cast doubt on the fact that harsher punishment promotes deterrence.
Despite the lack of such data, there were those who argued that it is precisely in economic offenses that the perpetrators of the offense are rational and act out of advance planning, that the harsher punishment is significant as a deterrent. The offenses of which the defendants were convicted are economic offenses whose purpose is to greed money. The importance of deterrence in economic offenses was discussed by the Honorable Justice Yoram Danziger in the Davidovich case, in paragraph 103 of his judgment:
"This consideration of 'deterring the public' – as well as 'personal deterrence', in accordance with section 40F of the Penal Law – is even more valid when we are dealing with economic offenses... This is because these offenses are characterized, for the most part, by being instrumental offenses in nature. They require planning, resourcefulness and creativity, and the main goal of the offender is to derive financial profit from the commission of the offense. Unlike other offenses that may be committed in the heat of the moment, the person who commits an economic offense acts as a rational person who calculates the reward of the offense against its loss. .... The main motive that leads them to commit the offenses is the economic motive. The way to deter the commission of the said offenses lies in the special characteristics of the offenses and their perpetrators. Since they are firmly rooted in the public, convictions for criminal offenses are intended to damage the good name of the perpetrators of the offenses and serve as a deterrent to their commission. Since they are, for the most part, well-off people who do not act out of economic or social distress, it is appropriate that, as a rule, the punishment for such offenses should be that of an actual prison sentence... In addition to the prison sentence, the perpetrators of these offenses must also be fined significantly. As rational people who commit the offense in order to gain profits, such a fine can uproot the motivation that gives rise to such arrangements."