Proof Is Simply Beyond The Capacity Essay

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

As for the specific deterrence, it aims to deter the offender so as not to return to the commission of the offense again, the punishment and pain and their material and moral harm will prevent the offender

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

The goal of general deterrence is a punishment that sets an example for other would-be criminals. Punishment must be tough enough to dissuade others from committing similar crimes. Incapacitation places offenders behind bars and removes the opportunity for continued criminal activity. Specific deterrence seeks to impose consequences that outweigh the profits if criminal activity. The goal of retribution is that the seriousness of the punishment is equal to the seriousness of the crime. This is referred to as just desert. Rehabilitation focuses on treatment programs and helping individuals with underlying problems that may have motivated them to commit crime. It assumes once the underlying issues are resolved the individuals will no longer be

America’s strategy of capital punishment believes that killing someone actually solves the problem of reducing crime rates, when in reality it is more of a method to avoid the real issue with the criminal justice system. We are killing all these prisoners and not really getting the answers we need. For instance, are we really stopping crime? Also, the death penalty puts innocent lives at risk because of how flawed it is. Since the introduction of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from Death Row, including some who came within minutes of execution with the death penalty. Therefore, I am against the death penalty and wish for it to be terminated due to the fact that it is morally wrong and has little to no impact when it comes to reducing crimes rates. This makes it practically useless and straight-up stupid; it also distracts us to a point of making us avoid the true ways to actually reduce crime in America.

According to the journal article, 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, 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 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

Deterrence has also been labeled “utilitarian” and justifiable where a particular punishment results in a less painful outcome that would otherwise occur. Deterrence is broken down into two categories. The first category is ‘general deterrence’, where the objective is to deter other members of society into committing the same crime, or similar crimes. The second category is ‘specific deterrence’, where the objective is to deter the individual offender from committing the same or similar crimes against society in the future. This theory focuses strongly on the offender and attempts to predict his or her future behavior by looking at factors such as past criminal record, attitude, motivation and likelihood of reformation and rehabilitation.

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.

(Payne, 2012) states that “Deterrence theory can be traced to Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments, a work that many have defined as the foundation of the classical school of criminological thought” (p.439). Based on this theory, there are three criteria that must be met for the punishment to be effective: (1) punishment must be swift so that the offender links the behavior of the crime with the response of the punishment, (2) punishment must be certain so that offenders know if a crime is committed then a negative consequence will occur, and (3) punishment must be proportional to the crime so that the punishment outweighs the positive benefits that an individual experiences from committing the crime (Payne, 2012, p.439). I believe this to be an important aspect to addressing criminal issues because it utilizes the classical approach, an approach that is argued by many as being the most effective at reducing criminal behavior. I also find this theory effective because it addresses the punishment aspect, exactly what I believe many white-collar offenders fear as a result of criminal activity. One of the main underlying assumptions for the deterrence theory is that individuals are rational beings (Payne, 2012, p.439). Generally speaking, members of police

Deterrence theorists try to understand how punishment affects someone’s desire or willingness to commit a crime. There are two different types of deterrence: general and specific deterrence. General deterrence aims to set a bar for what punishment a crime can receive. A wider population is intended to be affected by general deterrence. In contrast, specific deterrence is focused on a singular offender. Specific deterrence uses the punishment for a crime committed to convince the offender to not commit the crime again. This can be achieved through the severity of the punishment for the crime committed. Deterrence theory only attempts to explain the primary crime and the cause for the primary crime committed. Deterrence theory would say that an offender committed the crime because the punishment for the crime wasn’t enough to make them not want to commit the crime. In regard to repeat or chronic offenders, the deterrence theory would say that the punishment that the offender

At its base deterrence theory stipulates the promise of jeopardy to induce compliance (if I rob a bank and get caught I will go to jail.) Originally deterrence theory was established around military strategy, particularly in the Cold War with the development of nuclear weapons. The idea being that by deterring an enemy with strong enough measures a more powerful advisory could be held in check. That same strategy is at work in our legal system. By imposing severe sentencing guidelines for crack dealers we can reduce drugs sales. Several issues arise form this strategy, its lack of procedural justice left it

There are two types of deterrence, general and specific deterrence. General deterrence is a type of deterrence aimed at society as a whole. For example, documentaries and other forms of media give the general public a perception of life in prison as being not that appealing, which in theory will deter them from committing crime because they don’t want to go to prison. The other type of deterrence, specific deterrence is aimed at the individual and its goal is to discourage them from future criminal acts. For example, a person who has served time in prison may be deterred from

The deterrence theory, also referred to as the deterrence doctrine, deals with formal social control, in the form of judges, law enforcement officers, and the law itself. According to the deterrence doctrine, there are three ways punishment is carried out. The first way, is by the severity of the punishment. The deterrence theory explains that a person is less likely to commit a crime if the punishment for that crime is more severe. Punishment for deviant activities and crimes can range from less severe to more severe. The second way is that punishment for a crime can either more or less assured. According to the deterrence doctrine, people will be less likely to commit a crime if they know they will be punished for their deviant or illegal actions. The third way is that punishment for committing a crime can be expeditious or passive, depending on the circumstance of the situation. According to Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz (2013) “In general deterrence the punishment of a criminal deters the general public from committing crimes; in specific deterrence the punishment of a criminal deters the criminal alone from committing more crimes.” (page 29)

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.