The Criminal Justice System And Crime Prevention

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).

The offender must have some type of punishment for the action he or she chose. Deterrence is a type of sentencing that prevent future actions of crimes. There is a general deterrence and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is punishment that prevents the criminal to commit additional crimes by enforcing fear. "Back in the day", depending on the crime, the criminals would get parts of their body removed. For example, rapist were castrated. General deterrence is when examples are shown to prevent someone, that is contemplating on committing crimes, to change their minds. Sometime's when a person is put in jail it does not change their criminal minds.

Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime

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

Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory and the three strikes laws are seen by some researcher as the way to maintain control, deter crime and deliver harsh punishment for repeat offenders by subjecting them to the three strikes law. They believe that if the punishment is harsh that offenders will be deterred to commit crime. We will take a look at these theories, and see if they are really the answer to our crime problems in the USA. It will also allow us to ask the question which is: can theories work better individually or should we incorporate them to make a better policy? And if we do incorporate them will in a policy, will they reduce crime, deter criminal from committing future crimes, and help to reduce future criminal acts? Lastly, can we implement general strain theory to into the policy so that we can try to figure out what is wrong, along with reevaluating the three strike law and see if the mandatory sentencing is working or is part of the problem?

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.

There are three principles that the deterrence theory follows. The first principle is severe punishment. Its basis is any criminal penalty must be severe enough to outweigh the benefits to be obtained by crime. Our perceptions about the severity of punishment is, the more people suffer, and the greater the severity of that punishment, than the criminal has ‘paid’ for their crime. For example, capital punishment. There are only two options you can receive as

One of the keys to success for the criminal justice system is the effective use of deterrence. General deterrence is a style of deterrence that punishment for offenders that is conducted in order to prevent other individuals in society from committing a similar crime. The United States criminal justice system is designed to benefit from the positive effects of a deterrence model in the court sentencing system. An article published in the 2015 Minnesota Law Review discussing the key components to deterrence stated, “Key to deterrence is a belief on the part of the person being deterred (1) that prohibited behavior will be detected and (2) that an immediate, negative consequence is certain to accompany any detected violation” (Klingele, p. 1633).

The view that the experience of prison in itself acts as a deterrent is rooted in the simple specific deterrence theory which predicts that individuals experiencing a more severe sanction are more likely to reduce their criminal

Law, crime, and the concept of deterrence have existed simultaneously for thousands of years. Since Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden crime has been a prevalent aspect of society and always will be. Ever since there has been crime and as long as crime exists there will be efforts to deter people from committing crimes. Deterrence relies on fear and doubt to dissuade a person from committing a crime. However, does deterrence work? Many people think that deterrence does not work and tend to follow the logic of the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory says that everyone makes calculated choices based on the risk and the potential reward (Siegel, 2011).

To what extent has the media shaped your understanding of crime and the criminal justice system?

All things have their problems. Contemporary Theorist believes that, yes deterrence may stop some people but for other is causes a backlash effect. The authors of Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context explained backlash effect like this, “…stiffer penalties will generate more rather than less deviance among some segments of the targeted population” (Brown et al., P148, par. 3). A study by Gary Lafee and some of his colleagues showed how the backlash effect works. They results of their study showed that deterrence did occur but the backlash effect was much more. This study shows that punishment might stop some criminals, but not all of them are afraid of punishment (Brown et al., 2010, p 148-150).

In classical theory, the main objective of study is the offence and the nature of the offender is a rational, free-willed, calculating and normal individual (Aker, 2012). However, it became apparent that some were more motivated to commit crime than others, regardless of deterrence. Therefore, the classical doctrine cannot account for re-offending. Based on empirical research done on convicted offenders, the notion of deterrence was rarely given thought of (Burke, 2013). Initially, most offenders give a lot of thought to the notion of punishment; however, in the process of committing the offence, offenders give little consideration to deterrence and consequences. As a result, this defies whether the purpose of deterrence is, in fact, achieving what it is meant to (Burke, 2013). The model is idealistic, that individuals could be controlled by the threat of punishment- by the likelihood of arrest, prosecution and

Rational choice theory addresses, criminal behavior in various ways. In addition, this theory also falls short in many places. I have decided to work on the rational theory because it is a common theory that I see on a day to day base. I feel that anyone who breaks the law should be held responsible and not be rewarded with such a low punishment. If our criminal justice system enforces stricter punishments than those who are

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.