General Deterrence Research Paper

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).

What is the first thing that one associate when one hear the word “punishment”? Some might wince when it reminds them of their parents grounding them, running ten laps in a football field, and getting their electronic devices confiscated. The common adjective to describe all these punishment experiences is “unpleasant”; it is also the idea of punishment that the society feels familiar. In addition, according to the psychological definition of “punishment,” it is an event to reduce the undesirable behaviors of someone by removing pleasant things or issuing unwanted things. Standing in front of one’s house and holding a board that says, “I am lowering my children’s living standards by not supporting them” is unpleasant. Getting one’s photo with the conspicuous caption that says “I bought marijuana with my child beside me” in the advertisement is unpleasant (Kahan, ). However, according to Tangney, these kinds of punishment make people feel “small, worthless and powerless”, but it is only when the sentence evoke extreme shame in an offender. Like Mark Twain had said, “Too much of anything is bad.” Therefore, it is the legislators’ and judges’ duty to equate the intensity of an offender’s crime with the severity of the public shaming sentence since they are finding an alternative of incarceration to punish non-violent offenders without its

General deterrence is designed to impact more than one offender by setting an example to other potential criminals by incarcerating an offender, in the hopes that it will alter the behavior of societal members before committing a criminal act. Specific deterrence is aimed toward an

Deterrence theory is the basis and the ultimate desired outcome to deter crime in the United States (Feldmeyer, 2015). That has not always been true. There has been a period in U.S. history, 1960’s and 1970’s that Rehabilitation Theory was considered the method of choice (Feldmeyer, 2015). Rehabilitation Theory, including treatment, was to treat the “illness” rather than place heavier sanctions such as incapacitation. Even though Rehabilitation is not the predominate approach used today, it is still a viable choice to curb criminals appetite to offend others. The close contender to Deterrence Theory is the Rational Choice Theory. Rational Choice Theory uses the premise of “free will” (Brown, 2013). That the offender has a choice of whether to commit a crime or not because the offender is not confined to just one choice. That his choice would bring more pleasure (Brown, 2013). We can classify deterrence in two categories: either formal, such as prison and jail sentences, or informal such as effects on offender’s job. Research has shown that informal sanctions have a greater determent than formal sanctions (Feldmeyer, 2015).

This general deterrence serves the whole community, not just the offender who committed the violation. When other members of the community see the punishment, which was handed down to the violator, then in their minds, the fear of suffering the same consequences, will prevent them from violating the law. This general deterrence also helps with the second philosophy of utilitarian punishment, which is the reinforcement of the social norms, or values (Brody & acker, 2010). Along with the deterrence value, punishment also shows the rest of the society that violators will be condemned by the rest of the community. The fear caused by this, and of the punishment itself, keep others from breaking the

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.

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.

According to the journal article, How Much Do We Really Know about Criminal Deterrence? The concept of deterrence is simple: “it is the omission of a criminal act because of the fear of sanctions or punishments. Deterrence is an important foundation of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement is there to apprehend those that break the law, and to convince the public that there is a risk of apprehension and punishment if they commit a crime.” “Laws provide a host of different sanctions for the commission of offenses such as: fines, probation, imprisonment, mandatory minimum sentences, the (three strikes) law, and others are all enacted with the expatiation that sanction threats can deter crime is at the heart of the criminal Justice system.” According to the journal article How Much Do We Really Know about Criminal Deterrence? “There is an abundance of research about specific police, judicial, and correctional policies, as well as a more general theoretical work about deterrence mechanism, with the evidence to date, it is still flimsy.”

Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending. As a basic term it means that to discourage. In the criminal justice system, general deterrence seeks to stop the public from entering into illegal activities. Deterrence is often contrasted with retributivism, which holds that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done (Kleven, 2004). First, deterrence rests heavily on the belief that rationality will prevail throughout the process. Not only do the various parties have to behave in fundamentally rational ways, but each party must perceive the other as behaving in a fundamentally rational way. Critics of deterrence rightly point out that the decisions

Prevention is frequently appeared differently. which holds that discipline is an important outcome of a wrongdoing and ought to be ascertained in light of the gravity of the wrong done. The idea of Deterrences have two key suspicions the first is that particular disciplines forced on guilty parties will "dissuade" or keep them from carrying out further violations; the second is that dread of discipline will keep others from perpetrating comparative crimes. Specific deterrence is designed—by the nature of the proscribed sanctions—to deter only the individual offender from committing that crime in the future. Proponents of specific deterrence also believe that punishing offenders severely will make them unwilling to reoffend in the future. A drunk driver, for example, would be deterred from drink- ing and driving because of the unpleasant experience he or she suffered from being arrested, or having his or her license taken away or his or her car impounded. The state must apply enough pain to offset the amount of pleasure derived from drinking. Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large Other individuals meet up so that way they can decide on what to

(Allen & Latessa, 2013) Unlike the rehabilitation model, the offender is viewed as an enemy in society. (Allen & Latessa, 2013) Within this particular ideology, the explanation of punishment can essentially be placed in three categories; retribution (getting even), deterrence (preventing/controlling), and incapacitation (deprivation). From a philosophical perspective, retribution is simply getting even with the offender. There is an underlying assumption that the offenders willingly commit the criminal acts, therefore they are responsible for their actions. (Allen & Latessa, 2013) The intention of deterrence is to control crime by means of incapacitation, threatening punishment, and announcing potential

The five rationales for punishment for law violations are societal or victim satisfaction, removing the offending perpetrator from societal interaction, prevention of possible future crime, changing offender psychology and ideology, and returning the victim to post-crime circumstances if possible (Bohm, & Haley, 2014). Subsequently, the justification for incapacitation is that it removes the potential that the offender can commit further crime. Moreover, the previous justification ties into the deterrence of crime due to the incarceration of the offender and is an example of likely consequences to other possible offenders. Additionally, the prospect of behavior change is an eternal hope; ergo society hopes that help programs, fines, probation,

Interesting information you have discussed. Regarding to deterrence, there are 2 types of deterrence, which are, general deterrence and special or also known as specific deterrence. General deterrence somewhat reduces crimes from occurring because individuals know what the consequences are for committing a crime. Individuals who ponder committing a crime will be precluded by possessing knowledge regarding to the laws they should not be disobeyed and what are the consequences for disobeying that law. By contrast, special deterrence “reflects punishment that deters an offender from engaging in additional criminal behavior because of the disagreeable

The reasoning behind these harsher sentences is that “putting people in prison for years or even decades should prevent offenders from re-offending by incapacitating them and/or deterring would-be-offenders from committing crimes” (Wright, 6). The theory of deterrence and the aim of incapacitation are well intended but are not concrete.

The other form is specific deterrence, where an individual decides to refrain from conducting a crime due to fear of being prosecuted again, after a previous sanction on the individual. The fear of conducting a crime, in this case, arises from threats of previous punishment and fear of being punished again. For example, an inmate who was recently released from prison may fear to conduct another crime since he or she does not want to be rearrested and prosecuted again. The person is already aware of the punishments and sanctions that a criminal undergoes if arrested, and thus decides to refrain from engaging in criminal activities. It is one of the measures that reduce the number of criminals, especially those inmates previous arrested and released.