Deterrence Theory Of The Criminal Justice System

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

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

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

A conspiracy theory is a theory that argues that the rich and those with power seek the make sure the criminal justice system fails because they benefit from that failure. Conspiracy theories are hard to be proven and for it to succeed, it has to be kept a secret. There’s no credibility in the sources due to the degree of secrecy. Conspiracy theories are invalid because it doesn’t correspond with how people behave most of the time. The Pyrrhic defeat theory isn’t a conspiracy theory because the theory bases itself on why the criminal justice system fails and that’s due to our own shortcoming of not trying hard enough to prevent it.

The general deterrence theory and specific deterrence theory are two explanations or rationales as to why the policy of life imprisonment was introduced [5]. Firstly, life imprisonment may have been introduced to show a demonstration effect. This is based on the idea that when we see others who have been caught and punished, it is assumed that we will not do the same thing they have done. It is based on the idea that someone who commits an offense sets an example for the rest of society. Another explanation for the introduction of the policy may be based around specific deterrence. This is the idea that the actual person experiencing punishment and retribution will encourage them to make a different choice if released [4]. Offenders will think twice before doing it again, however there are limitations to this theory. For example, research shows that when punished, sometimes offenders get attention and punishment gives offenders recognition. Finally, it is the notion of the severity of the punishment. For example, as a punishment becomes more severe, the less likely people are to engage in it. Therefore, severe punishments such as life sentences may result in less people to engage in severe crimes. In culmination, it is the laws surrounding the Criminal Code of Canada that govern these severe crimes by

This paper defines and analyzes Beccaria's concept of deterrence and the three key elements of punishment. The concept of deterrence is a classical school and rational choice model that emphasis punishment in order to deter crime. The three key elements of punishment used in order to deter crime include: the swiftness of punishment, the certainty of punishment, and the severity of punishment. It discusses which of these elements Beccaria thought was the most and least important, as well as my personal opinions. Also included in this paper are real-life examples of deterrence and the elements of punishment that they use.

The term deterrence underlines the discouragement of an individual from doing something for doubt or fear (Tonry 24). Casare Beccaria, the father of classical criminology, believed that certainty, severity, and swiftness could deter crime. He expressed that as certainty of penalization goes up, the less likely someone is to transgress the law. So if the criminals figure out that they would be penalized, they would be more discouraged to commit a crime. He strongly believes that the laws need to be very clear and must always be enforced. His second principle of deterrence expressed that the more swift the punishment is set in, the less likely crime will transpire. Beccaria believes that the less time between the crime and the penalization, the more vigorous impact it would

There are three principles that the deterrence theory follows. The first principle is severe punishment. Its basis is any criminal penalty must be severe enough to outweigh the benefits to be obtained by crime. Our perceptions about the severity of punishment is, the more people suffer, and the greater the severity of that punishment, than the criminal has ‘paid’ for their crime. For example, capital punishment. There are only two options you can receive as

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

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, is another one of the goals. Deterrence relies more on trying to prevent crime from occurring. An example of such, would be to punish someone who committed a crime with a harsh sentence. With that is the hopes that others who are thinking of doing the same crime, see the possibilities of what could happen and prevents those interested in doing the crime from committing the crime. Another example of deterrence could be crime prevention such as having more cameras in locations, with the higher chances of getting caught or being able to be recognized helps to prevent some crimes from occurring.

The concept of deterrence means that people should be punished to set an example for others. One assumption is that if a particular punishment is placed on offenders, it will keep them from committing others crimes. The next assumption is keeping others from committing crimes. According to Amnesty USA, different studies have shown different stances on whether or not the death penalty has an effect on crime. Other studies have shown that Over 80 percent of those polled believe that the present research does not support a deterrence effect for the death penalty (dealthpenaltyinfo.org).

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

Deterrence is a further purpose that needs to be highlighted. The aim of punishment is also to warn people from crime committing under the fear of being punished and it might be reached through the well-developed criminal justice system, one of the main aim of which is to ensure that every wrongdoer will be punished for the criminal acts. There are two kinds of deterrence. They are general and specific deterrence. Ferris defines specific deterrence as deterrence which attempts to persuade the individual before the court not to commit further offences, while general deterrence is defined as the process of persuading others who might be inclined to offend not to do so. Deterrence has its own pros and cons as well. One of the main deterrence benefits is that it may reduce crime rate significantly and sharply. For instance, there is a three strikes policy in most states of USA, which means that if an individual has already been in jail two times and if this person commits a third crime, she would be automatically sentenced for 25 years regardless of crime seriousness. On the other hand, the main drawback is that criminals usually think that they will not be caught, so they continue committing crimes.