A deterrence theory underlies in criminal laws and justice system to restrain from crimes. Corresponding to the definition, a deterrence theory itself simply means more strict and definite punishments will decrease the rate of crimes, including violent crimes, robbery, burglary, and even drunk driving and possessing drugs. The major goal for deterrence is to make people to avoid committing crimes because they do not want to approach unpleasant experiences and to reinforce people’s behaviors by strengthening the laws and justice system. However, the actual practices of this theory are not as simple as it looks. Walker pointed out few basic assumptions which are related to deterrence theory that may not work at the real world.
Deterrence leads to the idea of crime being a choice specific to an individual. People who engage in criminal behavior weigh the possible risks of consequences against the possible gain in rewards. What really tips the scale in this gamble of criminal behavior is the certainty and severity of punishment (Kubrin, Stucky, and Krohn 2009). There can be a problem with this idea, are those who commit illegal acts rational thinkers? 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).
The fear of detection, conviction, and punishment resulting from prosecution forms the core of deterrence theory. Therefore, individuals decide whether or not to commit crimes based by weighing the possibility of punishment from criminal prosecution against their ability to profit from illegal activity. Although deterrence is one of the central objectives of the criminal justice system, there is little consensus as to whether or not prosecutions effectively deter corporate crime. In a study conducted by the American Antitrust Institute, data were collected ... ... middle of paper ... ... is conducted and meeting compliance validates the operational quality of the corporation. 4.0 Conclusion After a case like Enron, it is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for change that could effectively prevent corporate crime.
Criminology is the study of criminals and crime, but more importantly, why individuals commit a crime and why they behave differently in certain situations. When this is understood, methods of preventing and controlling crime are discussed and put into practice. There are several different theories explaining why people commit a crime, but the ones that I will be focusing on are the theories in the neoclassical school of criminology: Rational choice theory and the Routine activity theory. The aim of this essay is to attempt to discuss the contribution of the neoclassical school of criminology to crime and crime prevention through the use of explanations and critiques of the different theories. The Classical school of criminology was a development
Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals.
However, other models will be introduced and used to assess Packer’s imagery of value choices. In order to truthfully assess the character of justice alongside criminal sanction per se and be able to draw conclusions on how is justice manifested, this paper will succinctly look at several aspects of criminal justice process, including policing, prosecution and court procedures, and outside factors which sha... ... middle of paper ... ... as meaningless. Instead, this model sees crime simply as an occasion for social intervention. The offenders are not regarded as responsible for their acts, but rather as products and in some instances the victims of events beyond their control (King, 1981). According to this perspective, free will and moral responsibility are sheer illusions.
Assessing the arguments on crime being, functional inevitable and normal it is very clear that today deviance is very much apart of our society. Durkheim argued that crime could be beneficial, as reported and witnessed crime is often used as a warning device for our society. In moderation, crime can kept under control by the laws and collective conscience. Collective conscience provides a framework with boundaries, which distinguishes between actions that are acceptable and those that are not.
This is undertaken by solely examining Strain theory and Rational choice theory. Although individual influences in crimes are of importance; they should only be recognized as an aptitude of crime rather then its cause. For that reason, a critique of these issues promotes a change by the academic community away from discussions over their success towards the development of more unifying theory building in the current economic climate. A theoretical perspective that has been used to explain white-collar crime is rational choice theory (Paternoster and Simpson, 1996; Piquero et al., 2005). Its bases its argument on the idea that people consider their decisions prior to undertaking criminal acts, and then act in their self-interest.
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.
In light of the fact that there are several factors that can motivate a person to commit crime, opportunity is key in the midst of all. Crime Opportunity is another important theory to consider since it exhausts various perspectives in order to determine what provokes people to engage in crime. This meaning, it is impossible for anyone to engage in criminal activity when the odds are unfavorable and there are high risks. While both theories share similarities, Robert Agnew’s general strain theory appears to focus more on the reason behind criminal activity while crime opportunity theory emphasizes on situations of crime. Agnew’s General Strain theory focuses on the type of social relationships that lead to delinquency and the motivation for delinquency.