Criminal Deterrence Article Summary

375) and by using this hedonistic calculus people will refrain from committing crimes. This concept focuses on the punishment fitting the criminal and on preventing future crimes from occurring. The three most important factors in effectively deterring a criminal from further crimes are the severity of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment. If criminal doesn’t believe he will be punished or he feels the punishment is minor in comparison to the crime or if the punishment is not swift enough, then he/she will not be deterred from committing crimes. Studies on the effectiveness of deterrence have shown to be inconclusive. The deficient areas of deterrence are crimes committed in the heat of passions, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the massive backlog of cases in the nation’s courts (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008).

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

The criminal justice system consists of models and theories that often contradict one another. Of these models are the crime control model, the due process, model, the consensus model and the conflict model. In this paper these models are evaluated and defined, as well as each entity in the criminal justice systems role within each model. Policing, corrections and the court system all subscribe to each model in some way and in a hurried manner in cases that dictate such a response. As described by Erik Luna in the Models of Criminal Procedure, the following statement summarizes the aforementioned most appropriately.

Retribution has been associated with increased punishment, decreased treatment, but not with reduced recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990). Not only has there been no reduction in recidivism, there has also been no increase in deterrence through the use of punitive measures (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Deterrence-oriented interventions have actually been shown to increase recidivism by 12%, as demonstrated by Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis (as referenced by Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

The idea of capital punishment deterring crime is difficult to determine; some could rationalize that the death penalty should in theory stop potential murders from committing crimes. However, this rationalization has never been concretely proven. The research into capital punishment’s effect on deterrence is immense; however, the majority of research on this issue has differential findings. Although some research suggests conclusively that capital punishment deters crime, others found that it fails to do this. Understanding deterrence, the death penalty, and the results of

To formulate the law, it was decided that the most valuable approach to reduce violent crimes was through a mandated policy decision requiring identification through past behavior of those who demonstrated clear conduct to participate in violent criminal and whose conduct was not discouraged by the usual concepts of punishment. Reed (2004) stated, “The overall purpose of punishment within the criminal justice system is to prevent the commission of crimes to deter recidivism. For this objective to be successful, punishment must be effective in addressing the problems and solutions for the entire system, not just in individual cases” (p. 502). In reducing crimes, various methods and theories are taken into account. Some of these methods are additional police, additional courts, mandatory sentencing, and increased prosecutorial resources (Reed, 2004). Because the Three Strikes Law varies from state to state, this leads to the many problems it causes in the criminal justice system.

Over the years, many theorists have been considering alternative type sanctions for offenders, because of the ever growing issue of prison overcrowding of our jails at state, local and federal level. The use of alternative type sanctions seem to be growing, and is getting a second look from many prisons, and jails as an option for some offender. Also, “in addition to relieving jail and prison overcrowding, the level of risk many offenders represent is too much for probation, but

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 of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path Not Taken. The Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-), (3), 653. doi:10.2307/1143850

Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The

The criminal justice system is a group of institutions that work together to protect a society, prevent and control crime, and maintain justice; enforcing the laws regulated by society. As the years have gone by and society has evolved; so have the criminal justice system and its methods to accomplish its role in society. This short analysis will evaluate the main facts that have been affecting the criminal justice system for decades and have influenced the evolution the justice system is enduring in a changing society (Muraski, 2009). Amongst the changes in the system, we will discuss the effect the changes have had on the citizens and how their perceptions have evolved as well.

In classical theory, the main objective of study is the offence and the nature of the offender is a rational, free-willed, calculating and normal individual (Aker, 2012). However, it became apparent that some were more motivated to commit crime than others, regardless of deterrence. Therefore, the classical doctrine cannot account for re-offending. Based on empirical research done on convicted offenders, the notion of deterrence was rarely given thought of (Burke, 2013). Initially, most offenders give a lot of thought to the notion of punishment; however, in the process of committing the offence, offenders give little consideration to deterrence and consequences. As a result, this defies whether the purpose of deterrence is, in fact, achieving what it is meant to (Burke, 2013). The model is idealistic, that individuals could be controlled by the threat of punishment- by the likelihood of arrest, prosecution and

Studies have shown in recent years that the amount of problems for game wardens has increased dramatically. In an article by the New York Time’s, William Dicke states that in previous years, economic issues have caused an uptick in poaching (Dicke, para. 7). Due to the sheer number of unemployed and the rates going up, crime is rising as well, and it shows in abnormal crimes like poaching. Since the unemployed have nothing to do, and they have too much time on their hands, the act of poaching is becoming more common. Often the animal is not harvested for its food products, but instead for its antlers or skin. This goes to demonstrate one of the various problems that game wardens often face, poaching.