Criminal Deterrence Theory Essay

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.

Its bases its argument on the idea that people consider their decisions prior to undertaking criminal acts, and then act in their self-interest. Emphasizing that the decision to commit a criminal offense is within the control of the individual (Quackenbush, 2004). This decision is based upon an evaluation of the associated costs and benefits of the act. In other words, the perspective presupposes that rational individuals will make the decision to commit a crime when the anticipated ... ... middle of paper ... ...rs, such as the environment, play a significant role in determining the hidden causes of criminal behavior. For that reason, although the theories discussed contradict each other, they each offer us different insights into white-collar crimes undertaken by individuals.

Rational choice theory in Criminal Justice focuses on deterrence and how individuals are influenced by some type of factor that makes them engage in crime. This adds to conversation that criminologists started in the 1700’s because they were all about deterring criminals. They wanted the crime to fit the punishment which would deter other criminals from committing that same crime. Rational Choice Theory and Classical criminologists also believed that people committed crimes because they wanted to achieve their desired goals whether it would be for money or their sexual desires. This was based off of free will where people decided if they were going to commit a crime and what the consequences would be if they committed that crime.

Through the study of psychology, specifically free will, determinism and social identity, we may find that situational crime prevention is a better means to deter crime in our nation. The debate over the proper course for effective crime control can be traced back to the famous treatise “On Crimes and Punishments” written by Cesare Beccaria in 1764. Beccaria’s work implies (rightly so) that potential law violators would be deterred if government agencies could swiftly detect, try and punish anyone who violates the criminal law. This exercise in disciplinary power is noted by Jokiranta; “In order to get hold of the hearts and minds of the members, the community has to get hold of their bodies” (Jokiranta, pg 10), and has been adopted by systems of criminal justice since their beginning with the London Metropolitan Police in 1829. Along with this approach came the stigma that criminals were predominantly born of poverty and misfortune.

The offender’s choices may not always be rational and may draw on previously established beliefs about their opportunities to commit acts of violence. This theory focuses on the effectiveness of interventions to decide how to best reduce the benefits of crime and increase the cost of criminal action. Rational Choice theory is in the classical school, which is based on the idea that individuals choose to engage in crime (Gosselin, pp. 67-68, 2014). Biological

The assumption that understanding criminal behaviour is the most important tool we have to combat the incidence of crime has prompted many philosophers, jurists, psychologists, psychiatrists, socialists and others to seek a plausible explanation for the commission of crimes. Their methods are diverse, some employing scientific means and others using empirical evidence to explore why people engage in “deviant” activity. The most convincing of these theories are those which explain criminal behaviour by reference to the individual, such as the classical theory, which views criminal behaviour as being the free and rational choice of the individual. The theory then offers proportionate punishment as a means to discourage people from reoffending or to deter others from acting criminally. Whilst the theory is not without it flaws, it is difficult to disprove such a theory in the absence of establishing the offender was not capable of rational thought at the time of committing the offence.

The bias of the criminal justice system permeates throughout the whole process, from before a criminal act has been committed to the incarceration to even the death penalty. How discrimination can be seen impacting the criminal justice system can be better understood after examining the three philosophical orientations of crime prevention. The three types of philosophical orientations involved in the study of crime prevention and criminal justice are political function, communitarianism function, and authoritarian function. All three are orientations which approach the subject of criminal justice in their own ways. With political function, the main goal is to stop interpersonal crime by preventing crime or intervening at the earliest stage in crime.

Thesis Even though there are criminals who will weigh the risks of breaking the law and calculate the overall personal gain verse the consequences; the deterrence theory is believed to assist in cutting down on crime. Criminologists contend the certainty of fear of being caught committing a criminal act is enough to discourage violation of the law. Introduction This paper will discuss a peer reviewed article written based on observation and experience of two authors, concerning exactly how effective the deterrence theory is. Furthermore, the observation and evaluation by the authors, and why the study was conducted will be touched upon. In conclusion, how the authors were able to apply the deterrence theory to their empirical research while attempting to explain their personal observations will be analyzed.

2009). He also emphasized that the type of punishment should fit the crime. Another idea he had regarding the intended objects of punishment is essential to modern criminological sciences. The term “specific deterrence” means that the punishment should act as a deterrent for that individual. “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).

Who determines what actions are punishable and what actions are not? Also if the same act is committed in one society and is punishable, could it be committed in another society and not be punishable? Though there is a worldwide understanding of severe crime commitment and its punishments, including theft, murder, or abuse. I would like to convey a point through numerous examples and research that in many cases certain crimes are committed in good faith. Moreover this paper will also show the different theoretical justifications behind criminal acts.