A Response to Criminal Justice Posting Deterrence Theory

An open dialogue would be required between the legislature, department of correction personnel and the public. This dialogue would provide policy changes to the early release credit programs that focused on the reduction in prison population of non-violent offenders, establish rehabilitative programs to provide re-entry guidance and most importantly, always keep public safety at the forefront of the discussions. “The earned credits are viewed as incentivizing inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs that, in turn, should reduce recidivism after release from prison” (Turner, 2011). The prison system should not be viewed as a warehouse for humans but rather as a much needed form of justice that provides public safety by removing violent offenders and rehabilitating those that are deemed non-violent. All parties involved should take note that the major flaws in credit programs are not the programs themselves but rather the lack of accountability and

Because the attitude toward crime has diminished in volatility, it can now be brought into question whether incarceration is really effectual or cost-effective. While funding is required to build up these rehabilitation programs, in some programs the savings cannot be clearly understood until a few years into the revision.

Mass incarceration has been an issue in the United States since the start of the War on Drugs, because of the political agenda attached to the “tough on crime” regimen thousands of people have suffered as a consequence. The solution to this is one that can only be possibly solved by approaching through several angles. The ten steps presented by Michael Tonry, are an innovative and have merit to some extent. However, mass incarceration results from more than unjust sentencing laws, which is his main focus. If ever we are to resolve the issue, society and the criminal justice system must come together to completely reevaluate what we consider to be “tough on crime” and redefine the purpose of prisons, strictly punishment or rehabilitation. The focus has to shift from harsh sentencing, stigma, racial discrimination to a basic form of rehabilitation and reduction of the prison system in general. The criminal justice system has to do what they are actually meant to do and focus on rehabilitation measures, and when possible completely stop interaction with the prison system all together.

Most taxpayers and residents of communities aren’t aware of how beneficial it can be to lock up a reduced amount nonviolent criminals. The argument of incarcerating less nonviolent offenders originated in the 1970s, with increasing public concern about the threat of crime and many becoming skeptical about how effective rehabilitation is, Americans started focusing on some other goals of the prison system, such as retribution and public safety. They argue crime measures, such as mandatory minimum sentences and truth in sentencing laws, are keeping minor offenders in prison for too long and at great expense to the taxpayers. Advocates of harsh sentencing laws counter that they are necessary as a solution to lenient judges. David Masci, a CQ

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

In his chapter on “Assessing the Prison Experiment,” he explained that the increase of crime rate is not the sole reason that mass incarceration occurs, and it was also because the courts and the legislature did indeed became “tougher” on offenders (Currie 14). Currie discussed the circumstances of the war on drugs, which was launched by President Richard Nixon. He indicates that the incarceration rate and sentence longevity were increased dramatically since the beginning of the war on drugs. Some of these offenders were given a sentence for more than ten years without the possibility of parole, which is taking away any chance of the prisoner being released before the completion of his or her sentence. Locking people up is a failed attempt to descend the crime rate, and the adoption of mandatory minimum sentencing law is the root of mass incarceration. The government should reconsider the current sentencing laws and reform the correctional system in order to solve the current mass incarceration problem. Furthermore, establishing more community-based programs for youth offenders and initiating early release programs are excellent alternatives to resolve the issue of mass incarceration from both long-term and short-term perspectives, respectively.

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

The “get tough approach” to crime control has been prevalent since the 1960s. This approach takes the stance to a more firm and no tolerance policy against crime, hence the term “tough” in the actual title. “"Tough" crime control normally denotes more emphasis on police resources, faster apprehension of criminals, quick trials, and more severe sentences for guilty offenders” (Skoler 1971:29). The “get tough approach” emphasizes the need to arrest and punish criminals over rehabilitation and addressing the social factors that underlie criminal behavior (Barkan and Bryjak 2011). Deterrence of other criminals through severe punishments is the primary focus. The “get tough approach” of criminal justice institutions has been under scrutiny due to the outcomes that we will discuss further on. The purpose of this paper is to simply present the pros and cons that have resulted from the “get tough approach” on crime. The paper will try and remain completely unbiased to the “get tough approach” and solely focus on results that have come from said approach. We will begin by discussing the background and history of the “get tough approach” and what led to its development. We will then discuss things such as incarceration rates (US Department of Justice), crime rates (Dilulio 1995) juveniles in prison (Hinton 2015), policies that have been implemented (Shephard 2002), correctional costs, and destabilized urban neighborhoods (Barkan & Bryjak 2011; Black 2007; Mauer 2006) that result

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

The Deterrence theory is a key element in the Criminal Justice System. It’s principles about justice appeal to us because it adapts to our ideas of what we identify as fairness. Punish the sinful and the ones who break the law, swiftly, to the extent that pain will dissuade them from committing a crime ever again. Its sole purpose, to instill fear. Fear of breaking the law because of its punishments. We not only use this theory to punish criminals, but it is a basis in which we raise our kids and pets on, that breaking the rules can lead to consequences. The deterrence theory says that people obey the law because they are scared of getting caught and being punished. It is said that people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of getting caught, instead they are being motivated by some other deep need. In my paper, I will address the two theorists who re-conceptualized the deterrence theory, the principles and two types of deterrence as well as give short insight into my own opinions on the deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory has many ideas as to what constitute deterrence. Some researchers think that it is the main purposes of our criminal justice system. They do agree that it is the main goal when it comes down to discouraging society from committing criminal deeds. Because, of fear of punishment for committing a crime. Some researcher would have you believe that the most powerful deterrent we have is our criminal justice system, because they are the ones that will make sure that violators will be punish swiftly if they break the law. Well, “this is unrealistic to believe that any criminal justice system could ever accomplish this goal, no matter how many law enforcement resources were dedicated to achieving it” (“Deterrence”, n.d.).

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nation's criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn't until the late 1980's when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders. Unlike jail or prisons, which create an expensive cycle of violence and crime, these alternatives actually prevent violence and strengthen communities.

To begin with, Deterrence is the belief that society can reduce crime by making punishment tougher than the benefits gained from criminal acts. To “deter means to prevent” a person of an act by the threat, warning, or as in imprisonment (Merriam-Webster, 2015). The death penalty serves as a powerful deterrent to people who may choose to commit major crimes. The issue with the Death penalty is the lack of ability of the justice system in carrying out the penalty immediately. The long appeal process compromises the deterrence reason of capital punishment. Some criminals are truly above the law, in that their influence can reach the outside world even if they are behind bars. For an example, recently in New York “two criminals used their outside

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.