The Deterrent Of The Punishment

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).

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

It is thought that punishment prevents an individual from committing a future crime, or reoffending. Despite this belief, research examining the effects of incarceration and prison conditions has demonstrated

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

The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.

Some careful scholarship has already been directed at the issue of the relationship between the deterrent effect of sanction threats and criminal propensity. For several reasons that we will discuss at greater length in the next section of the article, however, we think this important issue is still unsettled and warrants additional research. First, the findings from these studies have been contradictory—some report a weak deterrent effect for those least prone to crime whereas some a strong effect. Moreover, sometimes the magnitude of the deterrent effect in different groups varies for the certainty and severity of punishment. Second, many of these studies have relied on student samples, relatively minor offending, and outcome variables of self-reported intentions to

(Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Vaughn, M. (2009). Determinate prison sentences or mandatory-minimum sentencing seems like it would discourage criminals from committing crimes because one would think that with harsher sentences would be likely to deter criminals from breaking the law. In the 1970s, indeterminate sentencing was used frequently, in most states judges and parole boards used wide discretion in sentencing offenders. (Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Vaughn, M. (2009). As it stands, the number of prisoners in the US in 2017 is ten times as much when compared to pre -1971, while the overall population rates have increased only by a third. Half of these prisoners (51%) are jailed for non-violent offenses (World Prison Brief, 2015). The existing number of prisons is not enough to hold and adequately maintain its numerous populations. Many of them are

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 assumption one may hold regarding policy-making in criminal justice is that individuals are well-informed about conviction rates as well as arrests, which influences changes in the criminal justice system. However, such assumption raises doubts on the severity of punishment. Further, perceived probability of arrest is related to subsequent criminal behavior. Such an argument is based on the belief that people with lower perceived probabilities of arrest are more likely to get involved in crime during subsequent periods.

Currently as a nation we use severity as our biggest form of deterrence; our threat of imprisonment has grown dramatically over time. In 1985 the average release time for a conviction of robbery was 32 months and in 2002 it jumped to a minimum of 53 months (Incarceration and Crime). We focus heavily on severity and longer incarceration rates; the idea is that a 10% increase in incarceration would lead to a 1.6%-5.5% decrease in crime (Lieka 2006) but this is not true. Prison rates have increased tenfold since 1970 and yet the crime rates have not dropped near those percents.The leading argument against increase in incarceration uses other states as examples of how ineffective it is; for example Florida heavily focuses on imprisonment to reduce crime with no effect (Incarceration and Crime). This idea would be great and a good mode of deterrence if those who go to prison actually learn their lessons and mend their future ways. Also if the unwanted effects of prison were at least tolerable this might deter crime but sadly even after experiment and evidence it is not a well functioning theory. The cost of funding our mass incarceration does balance out the decrease in overall crime. Besides when we have a nation who is majority hard on crimes compared to other crimes we end up severely punishing people who probably would respond better to rehabilitation than jail.

The concept of deterrence means that people should be punished to set an example for others. One assumption is that if a particular punishment is placed on offenders, it will keep them from committing others crimes. The next assumption is keeping others from committing crimes. According to Amnesty USA, different studies have shown different stances on whether or not the death penalty has an effect on crime. Other studies have shown that Over 80 percent of those polled believe that the present research does not support a deterrence effect for the death penalty (dealthpenaltyinfo.org).

Deterrence starts in childhood. A parent punishes a child for doing something forbidden and the child learns that doing this thing will have bad consequences. When one person or persons attempt to sway the decision of another with the menace of punishment more threatening than the gains, this is deterrence (Coleman, 2002). Deterrence is defined as the punishment of socially undesirable behavior as a means of future prevention (Coleman, 2002). The driving force behind deterrence is the fear of punishment. Deterrence is part of the Classical theory (South University Online, 2014). Classical theory states that criminals have free will and make a deliberate decision to commit a crime. Classical theory has been around since ancient times. Society has always had rules and punishments. The concept behind classical theory is that persons will avoid criminal behavior because of the negative consequences (What, 2014). The role that the family plays is that the family teaches the children how to behave in society and what will happen if they deviate from correct and proper behavior. Deterrence causes an individual to decide whether the gains from the inappropriate behavior outweigh the losses.

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

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

The tension was felt in the air. Ivan Markovitch, the Colonel, and the other paternal uncle were arguing and arguing over how they should punish Sasha. Sasha had made a promissory note that he could not pay off. This put him and his valuable family name in a very corrupt position. Sasha’s uncle Ivan was very compassionate with Sasha; feeling sorry that he lost his parents at a young age. The colonel on the other hand was not so sympathetic towards Sasha. He believed that Sasha needed to be punished for his actions and should be sent to court where he would have to take responsibility for his decision. Ivan and the Colonel both stood their ground and refused to change their view on how Sasha should be punished. Finally, the Colonel convinced Ivan that Sasha should be sent to court. “Ivan, how do you expect Sasha to ever learn from his mistakes if we keep protecting him from the consequences He needs to deal with his mistakes by himself” Proclaimed the Colonel.