Does The Perceived Risk Of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals?

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).

Most people have preconceived notions regarding the relationship between social class and delinquency. A common assumption is that lower-class juveniles are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than their higher-class counterparts. Criminologists have performed a large number of studies examining the socio-demographic characteristics of delinquents, which often yielded contradictory results. When analyzing the extent and trend of juvenile delinquency in the United States conclusions can be drawn from estimates derived from arrest records, self-reports, and victimization data. Arrest estimates, self-reported information, and victimization data provide different estimates of the extent of delinquency in the United States (Maxfield et

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

Adler, F., Mueller, G. O., & Laufer, W. S. (2013). Criminology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Though ration choice theory does not completely explain why crime takes place, it does have its strengths and provides a thought-provoking point on the occurrences of crime. Rational choice theory is, what is known as offender specific, in other words, criminals make decisions and assess their skills before a committing law-breaking offense. The métier in this is that it promotes responsibility of consequences, you did the crime, therefore, you should do the crime. The thinking here is that because you were careful in your planning on the execution of the crime, you are guilty. Although I do not totally buy into this argument, it is understandable to believe that because individuals who commit robbery, carefully select their target, wait

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is a research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. They dedicated to improving the understanding of criminal justice issues through science. NIJ provides objective an​d independent knowledge and tools to inform the people making the decisions of the criminal justice community to reduce crime and advance justice, particularly at the state and local levels. This is a very credible source considering it is a government resource ao the information on the page must be throughly reviewed and approved.Gerry LaPorte is the Director of NIJ’s Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences and also the author of this article. This article has slight

Severe punishments, such as long stints in prison and the death penalty, are designed to pose as threats or warnings to those who consider committing a crime. It also seems that, theoretically, more severe punishments, such as longer prison sentences, would help deter crime at least by keeping the offender locked away, thus “deterring” them from committing more crime. Certainty of punishment would serve to deter potential offenders with the threat of a definite, undesirable penalty, should they be caught and convicted. Certainty and severity of punishment both play on an offender’s sense of self-preservation, in hopes that potential offenders may not commit crimes to protect themselves from undesirable consequences. Promptness of punishment theoretically serves to deter crime by playing on not only the potential offender’s self-interest, but on the idea that public attitudes against the offender will be more severe soon after the crime is committed.

Perceptions of sanction threats are not strongly related to the actual levels of punishment [which] does not speak well of the ability of the criminal justice system to regulate criminal conduct through policies aimed at making punishment more certain, severe, or swift (Paternoster 2010:810)

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

In the United States, juvenile delinquency is becoming a major problem in the communities across the country. Because of the actions that these juveniles engage in on a regular basis, taxpayers across the country are having to shell out hundreds upon thousands of dollars to rehabilitate these children in order to help them make better choices. This leads citizens to wonder what factors actually cause juveniles to live a life of crime rather than success. In short, there are three main factors that often cause children to live a life of crime. These three factors are social influences, psychological characteristics, and academic potential.

Perceptual deterrence researchers have collected data at one point in time concerning respondents' current perceptions of punishment risk and prior involvement in rule breaking. ' 5 Consequently, the possibility that prior illegal behavior affects one's perceptions of punishment risk cannot be eliminated

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

When in context with violent crime, these stressors become even more intense, and irrational prejudices lead to failure of control over one’s own impulses. People are more insecure around members of different demographics, with the subconscious tension creating moral ambiguity within the mind, leading to a higher propensity of violent crime. Since these innate biases cannot be consciously controlled, the deterrence theory cannot be considered as a factor for curbing violent crime. Other subconscious factors manipulate people to act out impulsively without premeditated thoughts of the consequences.

Juvenile offending is a major problem in society. Understanding the risk factors that contribute to the increased likelihood of a juvenile to engage in delinquency is important. There are many factors that can influence the increased risk of juvenile delinquency. These factors include poverty, low socioeconomic status, age (Jarjoura, Triplett, & Brinker, 2002), race, gender (Lucero, Barret, & Jensen, 2015), education (Lucero, Barret, & Jensen, 2015; Jarjoura, 1993), and family structure (Anderson, 2002; Kierkus & Hewitt, 2009). It is important to examine if some risk factors can contribute more than others and to what extent they interact with one another. This paper will discuss three important risk factors that contribute to the likelihood of juveniles engaging in deviant acts. The three risk factors discussed are poverty, family structure, and educational attainment. In addition, this paper will demonstrate how these three risk factors interact with one another, resulting in a higher propensity for involvement in juvenile delinquency.

During biblical times crime not only affected society, but it was believed to have also been directed towards God himself. The Bible is the oldest book to reference with many directives to living life peacefully and without revenge. As retribution is considered a form of punishment, if not the first, the Bible itself explains that the punishment should not exceed the crime. Matthew 5:38 states, “You have heard that it has been said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth”. This passage is meant as a way to explain that the punishment should fit the crime. As a member of society, the offender was punished equally as brutal as the crime