Stafford And Warr's Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory

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).

Rational choice theory is predicated on the idea that crime is a matter of choice in which a potential criminal weighs the cost of committing an act against the potential benefits that might be gained (Siegel, 2011, p. 84). James Q. Wilson expands on this decision in his book Thinking About Crime, stating that “people who are likely to commit crime are unafraid of breaking the law

The rational choice theory gives insight in to why otherwise law abiding citizens would commit crime. Most burglars do not burglarize because they want something specific from the victim's property nor are they saving the cash proceeds for a long-term goal. They burglarize because they need the money right now to pay off bills, buy food and clothes for their family or to purchase alcohol and illegal drugs. Most burglars would turn to making an honest living, but, even that does not meet their immediate desires for cash. Nor would the earned wages support their lifestyles. (Wright & Decker, 1994).

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

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.

This paper defines and analyzes Beccaria's concept of deterrence and the three key elements of punishment. The concept of deterrence is a classical school and rational choice model that emphasis punishment in order to deter crime. The three key elements of punishment used in order to deter crime include: the swiftness of punishment, the certainty of punishment, and the severity of punishment. It discusses which of these elements Beccaria thought was the most and least important, as well as my personal opinions. Also included in this paper are real-life examples of deterrence and the elements of punishment that they use.

It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.

The concepts of the rational choice theory. Within the rational choice theory you have subcategories. General deterrence, specific deterrence, and Incapacitation. General deterrence is the idea that crime can be controlled by increasing the real or perceived threat of punishment. According to the general deterrence theory not only is the likely hood of punishment a deterrent but also the sentence will be harsh. This should in theory lessen criminal activity. So basically the certainty of punishment combined with the swiftness and severity of punishment will be the contributing factors of reducing crime rates.

The Deterrence theory is a key element in the Criminal Justice System. It’s principles about justice appeal to us because it adapts to our ideas of what we identify as fairness. Punish the sinful and the ones who break the law, swiftly, to the extent that pain will dissuade them from committing a crime ever again. Its sole purpose, to instill fear. Fear of breaking the law because of its punishments. We not only use this theory to punish criminals, but it is a basis in which we raise our kids and pets on, that breaking the rules can lead to consequences. The deterrence theory says that people obey the law because they are scared of getting caught and being punished. It is said that people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of getting caught, instead they are being motivated by some other deep need. In my paper, I will address the two theorists who re-conceptualized the deterrence theory, the principles and two types of deterrence as well as give short insight into my own opinions on the deterrence theory.

RCT is centered on the argument that criminal actions are not determined by environmental, psychological or biological factors which prompt the offender to commit the crime. The main assumption of this theory is that an individual’s actions are willingly and voluntarily executed by the person (Hastie & Dawes, 2010). According to RCT, offenders have a rational choice to make before committing a crime. Prior to committing the crime, an individual employs their logic to evaluate their options and make a decision on the action course. This assumption argues that the offender use their

In this essay, I am going to discuss what some of the ideas are when it comes thinking as to why deterrence does not work, which could be that the harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment for many of the crimes committed. It could mean that it does not work because the offender maybe becomes aware of the punishment. However, it could be because of the notion of impulsivity which connected and is almost everywhere within a society where there has been a connection to the idea of rational choices, which has a role when it comes to the way people have been thinking about committing the crime of any shape or form. However, there have been many reasons why it doesn’t work, because the offenders come from many different walks of life within a society. Therefore, the kind of crimes that have been done, which can then have associated with rational choices, which have people are connected to in society.

Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path Not Taken. The Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-), (3), 653. doi:10.2307/1143850

Another concept of the deterrence theory that relates to my deviance act is family ties. A family tie means that somewhere down the road, within my family tree the way we act in my family is because its how my bloodline was raised generation after generation. This concept fits right in with the deterrence theory because if someone has a family tie to a certain situation or a certain situation, then chances are they too will join in on the action. This connects to my situation because at first, when I handed my father the letter, he kind of shrugged it off and just looked at it as a stupid school assignment that I had to do to pass my class. This is because of our family ties, any male in my family, whether they are alive today, or have passed away, would have reacted exactly how my dad did. In fact thats exactly how I imagined him reacting with my first attempt to read him the letter. But once my dad had alone time, where he felt no one was going to look down on him for getting emotional, he broke the family tie and reread the letter I wrote to him and reflected on it. When I brought it to his attention that I knew that he went ahead and reread my letter, once again he denied it before finally opening up to me about everything I had written. The family ties were broken, but just between us, for a short amount of time, I don 't think either of us will ever let any other family member know what went on between the two of us for that short 20 minutes of opening up to

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.

Many policies are made about by research and theory. The rational choice theory is one that is based on the classical model of Beccaria’s deterrence theory in the late 1700’s. Several theories such as deterrence, situational, and even the routine activities theory, could be classified as subtypes of the rational choice theory. Criminologists’ define rational choice as a situation that an offender may commit a crime if the benefits are more rewarding and less costly than the penalty or non-criminal activity (http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theories/rational-choice-theory). The theory focuses on situational factors and cost verses benefits in determining an offender’s target for selection and whether