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.
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.
For instance, an alleged criminal suspected of a crime has been convicted and this reinforces the views that the system can protect and serve the community. Society admires the idea of convicting people rather than letting them into the society again and risking the danger that can happen. In many cases, officers and prosecutors will use their power to arrest and indict the person that best fits the description of the suspect of the crime. Therefore, the alleged criminal will most likely be convicted based on the description and circumstances of the individual. However, this plainly shows that the system fails to aid the innocent who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong
General deterrence is one in which the punishment on the criminal creates example for the society and create deterrence for not committing the same crime otherwise they will suffer from the same punishment. Sanction as pain some time produces ironical results. It is thought that punishment would deter offenders, in reality it hardens the criminals because once criminals accustomed with punishment, deterrence loses its strength on such criminals. Deterrence does not work for the hardcore criminals or for all those who commits crime without the fear of punishment. It has failed to reduce crimes e.g.
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. “General deterrence are actions to persuade others from committing criminal acts” (Couture, 2014, p.128). I feel more people are being deterred from crime by general deterrence rather than specific deterrence. Also as sanctions take place, incarceration would be best for general deterrence. Incarceration in jail or prison should deter society from committing crimes by people in society not wanting to be incarcerated.
(Crime control model) This paper will compare and contrast the role that the due process and crime control models have on shaping criminal procedure policy. Some of the differences between the due process model and the crime control model are in the due process model people that are arrested are perceived to be innocent until proven in a court of law. The crime control model believes that the people that are arrested are guilty and need to be punished by the government. Another difference with both models is the due process model believes that policing within the criminal justice system is essential to maintaining justice within society. The crime control model believes that the arresting of people in the criminal justice system has a negative effect and slows down the process of the criminal justice system.
Deterrence theories rely on criminal prosecutions to prevent corporate crime after the crime has already been committed (ex-post), where as compliance theories focus regulatory agencies that encourage compliance with the law before the crime takes place (ex-ante). 3.1 Deterrence Theory Deterrence theory argues that individuals act in accordance with their self-interest and obey the law because they fear the penalties of criminal behavior. More often than not, they choose not to commit crimes because they have seen harsh punishments imposed on others. Current research on deterrence emphasizes the role of the criminal justice system enforcing and punishing offenders. The fear of detection, conviction, and punishment resulting from prosecution forms the core of deterrence theory.
213) His belief is that instead of controlling crime, we should be more interested in the value system and the fairness of justice. I think that modern society favors the crime control model because law enforcement tries to maintain order in society while trying to incorporate finding out the truth and solving a crime. They treat the arrested as if they were already guilty and emphasize on arrest, prosecution and conviction of those who have broken the law. Police are allowed to interrogate a suspect, however they must make sure that they do not coerce a false confession because “it may result in the conviction of an innocent man . .
Agnew also points out another factor which contributes to criminal behaviour but which does not fit into the life domains; the factor of prior crime. I feel this factor is not analyzed enough in theories except for the labeling theory which explains that by attaching a stigma to an individual's life their deviant behaviour will only escalate. We focus on the steps which lead to crime but not the after affects of having already committed the crime. Agnew believes that although having engaged in crime the probability of future engagement foes increase, it does not always lead to further crime explaining that there are two factors which effect prior crimes; 1. how others react and 2. the characteristics of the individual (Agnew 2011, Pg 608). Each reaction to the crime will lead to a different outcome, for example if the offender gets away with the crime that fear of being caught slowly diminishes giving them confidence to continue with their delinquent behaviour.
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.