“General deterrence” means that if the public sees or hears of punishment that was rendered, the knowledge might deter other citizens from committing similar offenses (Levinson 2002). Both of these types of punishment should deter individuals from committing crimes. Jeremy Bentham believed that three aspects of punishment had an impact on deterrence: severity, celerity (speed) and certainty. In Bentham’s view, punishment was most effective when the level of severity fit the crime and that the punishment occurred
This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders. This research is tied to a larger theory that harsh punishments act as a deterrent to crime. They work by making people not commit a crime for fear of the punishment that is going to follow. This research is applicable across many facets of crimes that are rampant. It is going to help identify whether enacting stricter laws and enforcing them helps in reducing the relate... ... middle of paper ... ... policies have to be able to effectively deal with the crime.
As Joe Arpuio states “getting tough on crime,” the tougher retributive punishments are, may again deter crime. Deterrence- Deterrence is the intention to prevent future crimes from taking place, becoming split into two specific types of deterrence, general and specific. General deterrence is “actions that take place to persuade other persons from committing criminal acts” (Couture, 2014, p. 128). While specific deterrence is “punishments aimed at stopping... ... middle of paper ... ...ause it deals with society as a whole. Yes, general deterrence may use certain individuals as an example for society, but if the punishment for that certain individual is strict enough and is able to deter others from society from committing crime it is doing its job.
Just the thought that they might be caught is a powerful deterrent for would-be criminals. There are several ways that police deter crime: visibility, warnings, tickets, fines, and arrests are a few of them. Police visibility is a great way to deter crime. A criminal would be less likely to commit a crime if they had seen a police officer in that area recently. Robert Apel’s paper, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, stated that the visibility of the officers, sometimes called cops on the corner, projects a credible threat of detection and apprehension.
Crime prevention programs and schemes are put in place to evaluate and address crime, and hopefully prevent it. The programs can be implemented for individuals, communities, or specific locations. Crime prevention programs are intended to have a specific, intended effect on crime, and to ultimately eliminate it. As stated in the book Prevention of Crime: Social and Situational Strategies, “situational strategies are based on the well-established notion that crimes occur most often in particular places, times, and circumstances” (Rosenbaum, Lurigio, & Davis, 1998). The predominant issue with crime prevention and situational strategies is that it is believed that crime is never truly “eliminated” and just relocated to a different area, which is how crime displacement comes into play.
However, later findings likely show that crime prevention needs to be put to practice not only within, but also outside the criminal justice system. It is commonly known as social intervention (Gilling, 1996:11). This essay will show that social intervention seems to be the best strategy to reduce and prevent crime. This essay will also discuss some major causal factors of crime, the social intervention and criminal justice system strategic approach to crime control, and how each strategy fulfils the main goals of crime reduction and prevention. Bilton, Bonnet & Jones (2002:386) point out that according to the delinquent subculture theories, external social influences may have significant impacts on human behaviours.
The theorem for deterrence and rational choice consists of the following: the guarantee of punishment could lower criminal behavior, the severity of consequences will also reduce criminal acts, and swift discipline will avert further criminal behavior from offenders (Kubrin, Stucky, and Krohn 2009). Action... ... middle of paper ... ...e, severity and swiftness of punishment would and could avert further criminal behavior from offenders. Harsher punishments, and those pertaining to a specific crime (intoxicated driving laws/drug laws) could also further have a positive effect on crime. It is the discretion, which is what has had a negative effect on crime and deterrence. Research should be conducted on the police officers, judges and prosecutors on how often discretion undercuts the harsher punishments that have been advocated throughout not on an individual’s rational thinking strategy or a person’s perception of risk taking.
In answering the question, I will mention both structural and practical things that will help decrease delinquency in juvenile justice system as a part of criminal justice system in general. I recommend that local and state governments invest in school-based programs and after school programs as well as other evidence-based risk-targeted programs to reduce the problem. The rationale of the use of special program stems from the routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979). According the theory crime occurs when a suitable target, a motivated offender, and the lack of guardian converge in time and space. Also, situations they encounter in their daily lives influence their victimization chances.
It is based on co... ... middle of paper ... ... get away with their crime, if all the rules were not followed. It would definitely make a quick impact on the rate of crime in our society, but some innocent people would be prosecuted. This model goes along with the views of our society, in that people want a quick fix for the problem, and expect to see results. For the greater good of the whole, this is the best model. In our democratic society however, this model would not be able to function on its own.
Restorative justice is a theory of justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. This is best accomplished through processes that allow all willing parties to meet. This can be done in other ways if parties do not wish to meet face to face. Restorative justice is a different way of thinking about crime and our response to crime. It focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and attempting to prevent future harm through crime prevention.