Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deterrence theory in crime
Deterrence theory in crime
Deterrence theory in crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This paper will illustrate three theories; deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and restorative justice theory. It will outline in detail the policies, and the connections between theory, research, and policy.
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 in two ways. General deterrence is the punishment of the offender to be set as an example for others in the society and specific deterrence focuses on repeat offenders to refraining them from the act (Burke, 2009). The purpose of general deterrence is to abstain others considering committing the crime. It was argued that when the certainty, severity, and celerity of criminal sanctions are high in a population, criminal behaviour will be low. Studies suggest that capital punishment has been ineffective, other studies show that more homicides occurred when the death penalty was publicized (Pacotti, 2005). Then a comparative research shows that 5 countries with the highest homicide rate do impose the death penalty average 41.6% murders for every 100, 000 people, whereas the five countries that don’t impose death penalty is 21.6% for every 100, 000 (Gordon, 2010). Deterrence also has little affect on domestic cases, drunk driving, and shoplifting. Deterrence is well said in a theory but in reality ...
... middle of paper ...
...ender in certain circumstances of a situation. Restorative justice has been used widely, and has some success rate, for those to be held accountable without being sanctioned; by repairing the harm or paying restitution will restore harmony within the victim and community to some extent. The program is inconsistent that it will repair harm done to the victim, but many victims are being left emotionally, psychological, and physical strained which will lead to another conflict during victim-offender mediation.
Overall, it concludes the idea that some programs can effective and has ties to its theory; others can ineffective in deterring, repairing, and restoring crime, as well as low success rate. Furthermore, offenders in many cases don’t think rationally before committing the act and crime can’t be deterred it doesn’t matter if the punishment is harsh or lenient.
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
Restorative Justice as a whole in a very large subject, so we are going to critically analyse it throughout one of its restorative practice: victim-offender mediation. Because, it focuses on both the victim and the offender and actually implies an interaction between both parties, analysing victim-offender mediation is the best way to assess the impact of restorative justice as a whole.
In countries such as Russia and Japan, it is clear that the threat of capital punishment which looms over society does act as a deterrent in serious criminal offences. In fact most countries around the world who utilize the penalty have the lowest
The general idea with deterrence is that the possibility of punishment, or being made an “example of” through harsher sentencing; will sway people to not commit crime. The principal was thought to be that if you increase the harshness or severity of consequence for ones actions, you can in turn reduce the crime rate, but that may in fact not be the case. “There is now considerable research that disputes this idea especially with regards to jail sentences. The sentencing commission found that there is no evidence of a deterrent effect from increasing the severity of the sentence. But instead accepted that any deterrence effect comes from the entire process rather than a particular sentenced
Restorative and retribution justice is not without criticism. A number of concerns on the absence of bureaucratic and constitutional or due process rights of criminals, questions regarding the authority to decide the course of a case. Consequently, the concern with the guarantee of protection and the possibility of inequities when civic duties are left to interested parties to govern. The lack of counsel’s role for the defense or public responses is often from an opponent’s viewpoint and not seen as traditional sanctions, makes retribution and restorative very ineffective to address justices.
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
In the past, the main topic concerning the Criminal Justice System (CLJ) was, if the type of crime fits the degree of punishment an inmate will receive. Now we are struggling with the best ways to punish criminals. Some people recognize a criminal as defiant and need harsh disciplinary actions. Most correctional officers treat offenders like they are not human beings with remorse. Most of the prison population will be released into the free populations and have a high chance of recidivating. We do not want offenders to recommit crimes because that defeats the purpose of deterrence. Some prisons introduced the idea of rehabilitation as a way to prevent criminals charged with drug offenses from committing more crimes after release. Restorative justice focuses on the
Restorative justice is the idea that harm caused by a crime can be repaired (Wallis, 2007) and that the victim and community can be restored to how it was previously, rather than resorting to punishing the offender (Liebmann, 2007). At the moment, the criminal justice system is based on retributive justice over restorative justice; this is where a lawbreaker receives punishment in proportion to the crime inflicted (Milovanovic, 2007) and is given back what they have given the victim: harm (Koneke, 2011). Restorative justice has been seen as a potentially transformative social practice that could see the end for the need for harsh criminal punishments and incarceration (Menkel-Meadow, 2007). This could change public debate about crime and justice completely because the idea behind crime and justice is beginning to move further away from the traditional, retributive system that we are so accustomed too, and towards a more liberal, restorative justice system that focuses on repairing the harm done by the offender.
First, address the crime causation, thereby, finding out the route of certain crime will allow us to effectively address a solution to prevent that type of crime, for example, the “broken window” theory. Secondly, address the concern of mandatory sentencing for minor, non violent crimes, such as drug use, theft, and larceny, thereby reducing the amount of people we incarcerate for long periods of time within the department of corrections. Furthermore, allowing the use, for mandatory sentencing and the 3 strike law to be used for violent offenders only, however, the system needs to insure that these offenders are never released back into society. Lastly, society needs to take an all in approach, “pay today or pay tenfold tomorrow”, by investing in our criminal justice system, through crime causation, sentencing reform, and innovative corrections such as “Parallel Universe”, we may be able to slow down the need to build more
Braithwaite, J. (2004) “Restorative justice: theories and worries.” Paper presented at the 123rd International Senior Seminar, Tokyo, 14 January-13 February 2003. In Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) (ed.) Resources Material Series No. 63 (pp. 47-56).
For quite a long time the justice system has been kept running as indicated by the precepts of retributive justice, a model in light of outcast and disdain. Restorative justice is a much all the more encouraging methodology. This model holds that when a wrongdoing happens, there's a damage done to the group; and that damage should be mended. Restorative justice tries to bring the guilty back into the community; if at all conceivable, instead of shutting him off from the outside
Restorative justice is a simple yet complex form of justice and it is a relatively new theory in regards to the criminal justice system. The term restorative justice was first used by Albert Eglash in the late 1950’s. Eglash believed there are essentially three types of justice used in the criminal justice system. The three are retributive, distributive, and restorative. Retributive and distributive justice both focus on the actions of the offenders. These types of justices leave the victims out of the justice process (Van Ness and Strong, 2010, p. 21-22). These models give the victims an active voice, brings accountability to the offender, and gets the community involved in the justice process (Zehr and Amstutz, 2012). Restorative justice
Criminal justice is composed of many lateral departments that help us as a society to better understand the process that is started when criminal activity is suspected. We will examine how individuals learn how to commit crime and what motivates them to do so. This paper will discuss the steps that are taken once a crime is determine and how the Criminal Justice System is put into place to help solve and come to some type of resolution for the crime. This paper will further discuss the types of deterrence that are placed into society minds to help curve criminal behavior and activity. After reading this paper the reader should have a better understanding on how the Criminal Justice System works and why it is needed help promote a safe environment for our society.
Criminal acts frequently involve an injustice to one or more specific persons and the violation of moral laws. Immoral actions such as possession and use of drugs are common elements relating to crimes. Notably, these variables impact the procedure of applying the law fairly to all offenders of all crimes. Though restorative justice and retribution may work together, in theory, it may not work in practice. Thus, our current system of retribution, (negative judgment), is the prevailing form of justice in our society. The principle of Retributive justice is to correct the wrong and prevent retaliation by the
There is an ever increasing trend of crime in our society. The troubling issue is that such an increase is also seen in violent crimes; between 2012 and 2013 alone there has been a 4.2% increase in murder cases. There are many contributing factors to these statistics, one of them being the effectives South Africa’s judicial system. A punishment system which deters people from becoming first time offenders, as well as prevents existing offenders from re-offending will play a crucial role in stabilizing the level of crime in South Africa. This essay will consider whether restorative justice is an effective process and hence whether it is gaining support in the South African legal system.