Punishment given to offenders acts as an example for society and deters others from committing the same crime. Punishment serves as proof and as a model to the rest of society that criminal behavior will have consequences and can be seen as an educational tool. When using punishment as a threat, warning or intimidation tactic for the prevention of evil, it is formally referred to as general deterrence. “General deterrence stems from the perceived threat or fear of the inherent elements of punishment itself, not through some indirect process. Examples of general deterrence from fear of direct sanctions are refraining from speeding for fear of a fine or in my argument, refraining from a felony for fear of incarceration” (Williams & Hawkins, 547). By presenting …show more content…
Most times the punishment received was not worth the crime committed. This feeling is similar to how children feel after their mother warns them not to eat the entire box of chocolates or they will get a stomach ache. Once the act has been committed the “punishment” of feeling queasy was not worth eating all the chocolate. Consequences for crimes committed can act as compelling and powerful deterrence of future crimes by others. Referencing my example above, if a boy ate a box of chocolates and his sister heard her mother provide a warning alerting her brother of the consequences that this action would bestow on him and she then saw the punishment in the form of the upset stomach he received for committing the act anyway, she would not want that to happen to herself. The boy’s sister would then be deterred from committing the same act because of her brother’s consequence. Here, “punishment” served as a deterrent for the other family
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.
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).
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
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
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
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).
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
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
(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
In contrast, the question of deterrence can be answered objectively using common sense and statistics. By analyzing different arguments for and against the death penalty, such as the "fear of death" myth, the cost of the death penalty, and the racial and economic bias of the death penalty, it can be shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of crime.
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.