The Deterrence Theory Vs. Deterrence

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).

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

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.

The term deterrence underlines the discouragement of an individual from doing something for doubt or fear (Tonry 24). Casare Beccaria, the father of classical criminology, believed that certainty, severity, and swiftness could deter crime. He expressed that as certainty of penalization goes up, the less likely someone is to transgress the law. So if the criminals figure out that they would be penalized, they would be more discouraged to commit a crime. He strongly believes that the laws need to be very clear and must always be enforced. His second principle of deterrence expressed that the more swift the punishment is set in, the less likely crime will transpire. Beccaria believes that the less time between the crime and the penalization, the more vigorous impact it would

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?

Deterrence is founded on the assumption that people make rational choices about rather or not they wish to engage in criminal behavior. Thus, it is believed that one would weigh the gain they expect to achieve from a particular crime, to the expected cost of punishment. Punishment encompasses the likelihood of being caught and punished as well as the expected severity of the punishment. Therefore, in order to effectively deter, planner and criminal justice professionals must look into three factors: the severity of the punishment, the certainty of punishment, and the celerity with which the punishment is imposed. However, the severity of the punishment must be proportional to the benefit the criminal expects to realize from the

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.

The statistics show that the court system has made very few mistakes in the past four decades and continues to show its power even more in today’s society.

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 can be defined as an act of threat to prevent another party from certain actions. Deterrence theory is based upon a belief that citizens choose to obey or violate the law after determining the advantages and disadvantages of their actions (Paternoster, 2010). Deterrence, in the criminal justice field, dissuades individuals from criminal activity and from continuing to live a life of crime after committing the first criminal like act (Dutton, 2014). Law enforcement provides sanctions in the form of imprisonment, probation and fines (Paternoster, 2010). In the United States, a practical example of deterrence, when a law enforcement officer writes a traffic ticket to those who speed. The points and the fines that come along with the ticket are a deterrent against citizen’s defying the law. Deterrence theory is applied in two basic types of application, general and specific (Nagin, 2013). General deterrence is designed to prevent crime in the general population (Nagin, 2013). Specific deterrence, focusing on the individual criminal, deters those from violating law or maintaining a life of crime in the future.

My assumption is that the death penalty does not deter people from crime. I do not believe that the fear of receiving punishment or justice will deter murder. When people commit crimes, they do not think or care about the consequences at that time. If that were true, people would not speed on highways or do drugs in fear that they would be prosecuted. I believe that with or without capital punishment people will still commit crimes. I believe that the death penalty does not have conclusive evidence to be a tool in the criminal justice system to deter people.

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

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

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.