Deterrence Theory

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

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies – which took

Another issue related to the subject involves whether or not capital punishment actually deters criminals from committing crimes. Most people think that the death penalties primary function is to deter others in the future from committing similar crimes. There is evidence that at times capital punishment does deter. However, there are those or cite evidence or opinion that the capital punishment does not achieve its desired effect. The majority of this paper will focus on whether capital punishment actually deters crime.

Then two decades later, in 1993, the capital punishment statutes had been reinstated and performing executions, once again striking the thing criminals fear most, death (Tucker). During the 1990s as more states began to reinstate capital punishment statutes, murder rates began to plummet. They went from 9.6 people per 100,000 in 1993 dropping to 7.7 in 1996 and as low as 6.4 in 1999, which was the lowest rate since 1966. In other words, as the author observed during his study of the forty year period, homicide rates have risen when the rate of execution went down and as the execution rates had risen, the rate of homicides had decreased (Tucker). Not only does the death penalty engender an aversion amongst criminals and people who are considering performing heinous actions, it additionally promotes a positive influence towards themselves and others around. The mandate of capital punishment establishes the attitude of abhorrence toward criminals, and causes people to think about what they are doing because of the possible consequences. With people believing that living the criminal life is not the best of decisions, they are deterred away from making the decision of performing the crime (Caldwell 598).

In the 1700s, crime was rampant across every town in every country. Constables formed small patrols from volunteers in the community and it would not be until 1829 that the first police department in the world would be established. In these early days, there was no uniformity to the punishments given for crimes, but extremely severe punishments were common. It was during this time that Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham were born.

Correspondingly, in the published book “Deterrence and the Death Penalty”, the committee on deterrence and the death penalty presents research organized on the effects of homicide rates due to the death penalty. The author's research specifies that capital punishment neither increases, deters or has any effect on the numeral rates of homicide. This is important due to the fact that even 30 years

Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory and the three strikes laws are seen by some researcher as the way to maintain control, deter crime and deliver harsh punishment for repeat offenders by subjecting them to the three strikes law. They believe that if the punishment is harsh that offenders will be deterred to commit crime. We will take a look at these theories, and see if they are really the answer to our crime problems in the USA. It will also allow us to ask the question which is: can theories work better individually or should we incorporate them to make a better policy? And if we do incorporate them will in a policy, will they reduce crime, deter criminal from committing future crimes, and help to reduce future criminal acts? Lastly, can we implement general strain theory to into the policy so that we can try to figure out what is wrong, along with reevaluating the three strike law and see if the mandatory sentencing is working or is part of the problem?

However, no individual has ever been able to present any credible evidence that supports the theory of deterrence. Decades of research across the country has failed to produce signs of a higher murder rate in states that have abolished the death penalty. The theory of deterrence assumes that a murderer is examining the costs and benefits of the anticipated criminal act and taking a moment to think rationally. In the United States, the death penalty is only handed down for about one out of every one hundred homicides. A murderer has a greater chance of being killed by the planned victim or in a confrontation with the police, and therefor has no reason to fear the death penalty if there is only a one in a hundred chance they will actually receive it (Jackson, Jackson, and Shapiro 33). Moreover, most homicides are unplanned, impulsive acts and to imply that a murderer is thinking calm and cooly outweighing their options in such an emotionally charged environment is simply idiotic.

Deterrence justification is the reasoning of punishing criminals in order to set an example and decrease the crime rate. A common punishment that is defensible under deterrence justification is the death penalty. According to the data on the Executions and Murder Rate graph, there is a correlation between the number of executions that were carried out and the murder rate over a rate of fifty years. However, the data of the graph exhibited other variables (confounding variables) that could have affected the initial two. The confounding variables that affect these two variables include policy changes made to reduce crime, the criminal landscape, the number of states that allow the death penalty, and how many are actually carried out.

Another concept of the deterrence theory that relates to my deviance act is family ties. A family tie means that somewhere down the road, within my family tree the way we act in my family is because its how my bloodline was raised generation after generation. This concept fits right in with the deterrence theory because if someone has a family tie to a certain situation or a certain situation, then chances are they too will join in on the action. This connects to my situation because at first, when I handed my father the letter, he kind of shrugged it off and just looked at it as a stupid school assignment that I had to do to pass my class. This is because of our family ties, any male in my family, whether they are alive today, or have passed away, would have reacted exactly how my dad did. In fact thats exactly how I imagined him reacting with my first attempt to read him the letter. But once my dad had alone time, where he felt no one was going to look down on him for getting emotional, he broke the family tie and reread the letter I wrote to him and reflected on it. When I brought it to his attention that I knew that he went ahead and reread my letter, once again he denied it before finally opening up to me about everything I had written. The family ties were broken, but just between us, for a short amount of time, I don 't think either of us will ever let any other family member know what went on between the two of us for that short 20 minutes of opening up to

The deterrence theory, also referred to as the deterrence doctrine, deals with formal social control, in the form of judges, law enforcement officers, and the law itself. According to the deterrence doctrine, there are three ways punishment is carried out. The first way, is by the severity of the punishment. The deterrence theory explains that a person is less likely to commit a crime if the punishment for that crime is more severe. Punishment for deviant activities and crimes can range from less severe to more severe. The second way is that punishment for a crime can either more or less assured. According to the deterrence doctrine, people will be less likely to commit a crime if they know they will be punished for their deviant or illegal actions. The third way is that punishment for committing a crime can be expeditious or passive, depending on the circumstance of the situation. According to Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz (2013) “In general deterrence the punishment of a criminal deters the general public from committing crimes; in specific deterrence the punishment of a criminal deters the criminal alone from committing more crimes.” (page 29)

Deterrence theory most fully reflects the ideas of classical theory. Deterrence theorists argue that people are rational and follow their own welfare, attempting to increase their pleasure and decrease their pain. They choose to participate in crime if they believe it is to their benefit. The best way to prevent crime, therefore, is through punishments that are swift, certain, and appropriately severe. Deterrence theorists, like classical theorists, focus primarily on the impact of official punishments on crime.

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

The thought of deterrence, as a means to stop or even reduce cybercrime seems so primitive. Human beings have been trying to use deterrence to stop everything deemed unlawful by society for ages. Trying is the key word in that sentence. The article spoke on comparing the information security policy breaches to the criminal behavior outside the organizational world. So, let’s compare the use of deterrence to the criminal behavior in society. One of problems with the deterrence theory is the assumption that potential offenders rationally consider the consequences of the act before deciding to commit a crime, which often is not the case (Wright 2010). So, if you apply the comparison between the two, deterrence just doesn’t work. Thank

A primary reason to justify the act of punishment is for the prevention and deterrence of criminal activity. It may act as a specific deterrent by discouraging the offenders from violating any laws again. In particular, according to deterrence theory, “the threat of punishment should act to discourage the offenders.” Some evidence for punishment is examining the number of executions carried out relates to the number of homicides committed in a given year. Observed studies on this topic are often conducted by economists with some claiming to have found an additional deterrent effect of the death penalty