The Theories And Deterrence Of Criminal 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).

Labeling theory makes no attempt to understand why an individual initially engaged in primary deviance and committed a crime before they were labeled; this then limits the scope of the theory’s explanations and suggests the theory may not provide a better account for crime. Labeling theory emphasizes the negative effects of labeling, which gives the offender a victim status. Also, the same likelihood exists for developing a criminal career regardless of deviance being primary or secondary. Furthermore, labeling theorists are only interested in understanding the aftermath of an individual getting caught committing crime and society attaching a label to the offender. This differs from the view of social learning theory, which seeks to explain the first and subsequent criminal acts. Many critics also argue that the racial, social, and economic statuses of an individual create labels, as opposed to criminal acts; this theory then fails to acknowledge that those statuses may factor into the labeling process. As a result, the above suggests that labeling theory does not provide a good account for crime and appropriately has little empirical support. Moreover, in terms of policy implications, labeling theory implies a policy of radical non-intervention, where minor offenses

Because of the stigma created from the label a modification of self image occurs in the individual. The individual essentially lives up to their deviant label, becoming the person described in the label. The process of deviancy amplification whereby any punishments or treatment therefore reinforce the individual perception of the criminal, thus more crimes fitting to the label are carried out. This theory can however by criticised because it is determinist, where individuals have n control over the process and once they have been labelled they will inevitably turn

Another theoretical distinction that labeling theory brings to light is that this theory does in fact target both the criminal and society in relation to contributing to the cycle. The societal reactions that are presented when an offender is involved in a deviant or criminal behavior is a form of social control. Therefore, labeling theory incorporates these actors into the theory so that criminal justice professionals, students, researchers, etc. can gain a better understanding for why labeling does not reduce recidivism or crime rates. The community that an offender often is released to, knows about his or her offense, depending on the severity of the

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

I will discuss the nuances of the deterrence theory and whether or not it’s a viable form of preventing crime. The reason we have laws and punishments is to deter people from committing crimes. Deterrence is an inherent concept within criminal law. Many believe that people will commit crimes regardless of deterrence and therefore efforts to deter are in vein. I will delve into Cesare Beccaria’s view on deterrence and whether he thought it was practical for decreasing crime. I will talk about deviance and what makes a person deviant. I believe deviance has a direct correlation with deterrence. Lastly I will determine if deterrence is indeed efficient and effective or if it has no effect.

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

Schmalleger describes the labeling theory or social reaction theory as one that sees persistent criminal behavior as a result of not, having the chances for normal conduct that follow the negative responses of society to those that have been labeled as criminals. There is an expectation of a continuous increase in crime that is a direct effect of the label that is attached. The result of negative labels creates limited chances that the behavior would change on behalf of the criminal, due in part to societies stigma placed upon them (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 186). Those theorists responsible for the labeling theory that are discussed in our readings during this weeks assignments are listed as Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin M. Lemert, Howard Becker, John Braithwaite and others. When discussion the concept labeling, one must understand some of the most early descriptions of societal reactions to deviance, this can be found in the 1938 works of Frank Tannenbaum who explained the term, tagging. Schmalleger defined tagging as the process whereby an individual is negatively defined by the agencies of justice. Within tagging Edwin M. Limert, used the terminology of primary and secondary deviance, primary being a deviant act that was undertaken to achieve some immediate issue and or problem that may have arisen in the person life and doesn’t intend for the criminal behavior to continue. Secondary deviance

Researchers hope to isolate and measure a deterrent effect precisely, because a great many things must happen before deterrence can occur. Studies reviewed by the researchers in the article Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime, “(1) the relationship between objective sanctions, sanction enforcement, and risk perceptions. This research

Deterrence is the primary justification for punishment. In the practice, this deterrence-centric philosophy serves as the fundamental principle for many criminal justice systems in the U.S., no matter explicitly or implicitly (Eassey and Boman, 2015). According to Beccaria (1764), the central hypotheses of the deterrence theory are that crime can be prevented when punishment is more significant than the perceived benefits, and the punishment should be swift, certain, and severe. Generally, there are two types of the deterrence, one is general deterrence, which emphasized on the impact of punishment on the general population; while the other one is specific deterrence, which uses punishment to reduce recidivism (Stafford and Warr,

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.

Interesting information you have discussed. Regarding to deterrence, there are 2 types of deterrence, which are, general deterrence and special or also known as specific deterrence. General deterrence somewhat reduces crimes from occurring because individuals know what the consequences are for committing a crime. Individuals who ponder committing a crime will be precluded by possessing knowledge regarding to the laws they should not be disobeyed and what are the consequences for disobeying that law. By contrast, special deterrence “reflects punishment that deters an offender from engaging in additional criminal behavior because of the disagreeable

Deterrent Theory explains that most people would be will be deterred from joining or associating the organized crime, because of the judicial penalties associated with committing a crime. Deterrent Theory has two sub theories the first; General Deterrence Theory which stresses that people will be discouraged from committing crimes, because of the legal consequence associated with committing crimes. Example would be the death penalty, people will not commit severe crimes in they know their penalty might be the state putting you to death. The next theory is the Special Deterrence Theory which would have the penalty for participating in criminal swift and severe. To have a penalty so severe that it out-weighs the any perceived advantage the crime

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 first two theories are deterrence and rational choice. Deterrence is deciding whether to commit a crime based on punishment, for example not committing a crime because fear of the death penalty, incarceration, or three strikes and your out law. Everyone is capable of committing a crime but this theory states that with penalties like these people will not