General Deterrence Research Paper

Deterrence theory can be outlined as “principles of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment, proportionality, specific and general deterrence” (Burke, 2009). In order for the punishment to be effective it has to be certain, swift, severe. Certainty is more important than the severity in deterring crime. Deterrence theory confirms that if the punishment contains these three elements people will rationally calculate that there is more to be lost than there is to be gained from crime (Gordon, 2010). Deterrence functions

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).

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.

It is very difficult to isolate and measure a deterrent effect precisely, because a great many things must happen before deterrence can occur. Three broad classes of extant studies are reviewed; (1) the relationship between objective sanctions, sanction enforcement, and risk perceptions. This research includes calibration studies and correctional studies. (2) The relationship between punishment experiences (personal and vicarious) and change in risk perceptions, in

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.”

     Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence evaluates the premise that the rate of crime in any population is a function of both general and specific deterrence. Using empirical data deprived from their own practical experience, as well as from the observations and experiments of their other colleagues in their field, they attempt to establish their theory of the reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. First, it is important to understand the background of their work and the foundation of deterrence. There are two types of deterrence, general and specific. In analyzing the deterrent effects it is highly important to distinguish between general and specific deterrence, because they are very different. General deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on the general public (i.e., potential

In the following paragraphs, deterrence and rational choice theory, two important ideas, will be discussed. Deterrence theory argues that people are more likely to be dissuaded from committing crimes due to fear of being caught, rather than using a moral sense of what is right and what is the wrong thing to do. The three elements of the deterrent effect of punish relies on the severity, certainty, and celerity of the punishment (Lab, 2016).

This lengthy article, by Dr. Robert Apel of Rutger’s University School of Criminal Justice, is an essay concerning the author’s study of existing bodies of research regarding risk perception, punishment experiences, and the effects of environmental stimuli in a criminological context. Considered and discussed is the impact of the public’s awareness regarding criminal sanctions and the process by which it forms its perceptions of risk as well as how individual members of society act upon those beliefs. In what ways these factors might interact to influence

Everyone can relate to breaking the rules in one form or another. It seems to be human nature to do what one knows is wrong, and this is evident for people of all ages, beginning with children as young as two years old and extending throughout adulthood and into a person’s last days on earth. Whether it is as extreme as violating the law or simply not following instructions, misbehaving is an everyday thing. Usually when somebody is violating certain rules, they are fully aware of their actions. They are also fully aware of the potential consequences that could result from getting caught, yet they do it anyway. One of the main goals of punishment is deterrence. Deterrence is defined as a theory that the fear of punishment will discourage individuals from committing criminal acts. However, as it will be revealed throughout this article, deterrence is somewhat unrealistic because it is impossible to convict and punish everybody who has committed a moral or legal violation.

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

We as a society can understand the idea that general deterrence is an effect of punishment of people that offend on others that have not yet committed a crime. The type of experience from an offender will create fear which will deter non offenders from engaging in future criminal activities. As Akers et al (2009) described special deterrence as a process whereby offenders will stay away from committing any future crime if they are caught and then punished. In this situation individual offenders will be afraid of detection and punishment after they have experienced punishment (p.219).

(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

Specific rules and regulations are among essential components ensuring successful functioning of the society. MacKinnon and Fiala suggest that "for a criminal law to be a law and not just a request, sanctions must be attached to it" (p. 365). Various theories exist, which attempt to determine what would be the optimal course of crime prevention and legal repercussion to the violators of the law. The deterrence argument holds a utilitarian perspective on the punishment and concentrates on the proactive ways to enhance safety by increasing public awareness of the consequence of the law-breaking acts, keeping punishment as a viable threat. It is directed to prevent people from violating the law or deter them from doing so. It supposes that once

One significant idea that focuses on the decision to commit crime is deterrence theory. Concepts of deterrence reflect the use of punishments that are swift, severe, and certain to control crime (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015). Deterrence theory assumes that individuals make a rational decision to either obey or break the law after calculating the costs and benefits of engaging in crime (Lilly et al., 2015). Typically, when the cost of the crime outweighs the benefits, individuals are likely to avoid criminal conduct. Although society continues to push for more severe sanctions, such as, mandatory minimums or capital punishment, research provides that these techniques fail at deterring crime (CITE). Therefore, the certainty of punishment more

“Research to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits” (Wright, 1). The seriousness of the penalty should prompt the possible offenders to think twice or weigh their options prior to carrying out a crime. Half of State inmates and a third of Federal prisoners reported committing their current offense under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Mumola). This works against the deterrence theory because while the individual is under the influence their thought process is dysfunctional. There isn’t a sound thought process in their mind while committing or before deciding whether or not to commit the crime. “Therefore, it is unlikely that such persons are deterred by either the certainty or severity of punishment because of their temporarily impaired capacity to consider the pros and cons of their actions” (Wright, 2). Another reason deterrence is imperfect is that if there was actual certainty that the criminal would be apprehended, limited people would do so. “Most crimes, including serious ones, do not result in an arrest and conviction, the overall deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is substantially reduced” (wright, 2). Increasing severity of punishment and sentencing over the years has had little effect because the potential criminals think about the chance of them not getting detained for committing their crime. If the public was more certain