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.
The other key leader Bentham, argued that the purpose of punishment should be to show people that the cost of the crime outweighs the gains of it, he was a supporter of the use of prisons and thought that punishment should be proportionate to the crime and have predictable, certain consequences to deter people from future offences. One
State and Federal objectives of punishment Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while incapacitating and, rehabilitating offenders. For punishment to be successful it must be so unpleasant that it will hopefully deter inmates from reverting to such life and also deter others from taking part in such activities. In response to the growing public concern over criminality, politicians have adopted a Tough on Crime approach when dealing with law breakers, and have pushed for new legislation to keep criminal offenders from further harming or terrorizing society.
Many people often confuse deterrence with retribution or punishment, but that it is not. Instead of serving your “debt to society” for a crime you committed, under the principal of deterrence you are serving your punishment to keep you and your neighbors from doing the same crime. Operating according to the deterrence model necessitates two principal assumptions: that imposing a stiff penalty will dissuade someone from committing crimes in the future and secondly, that the fear of this punishment will prevent future crimes perpetrated by others. (Wright, 2010) One very important idea here is that it is a “stiff” penalty, a penalty that others won’t forget. There are many faults in this argument, with the largest being the amount of faith put into mankind.
Paragraph 2267 is concerned exclusively with a secondary purpose of punishment: protecting society. Unless, as suggested, "protecting society" be taken to comprehend "redressing the disorder." (Paragraph 2266 distinguishes "defending public order" from "protecting people's safety.") One sometimes hears in the clamor to end the death penalty that retribution is no longer the aim of punishment. But if there is no cause for retribution, punishment is unjust: All that would excuse it is the fear that someone might in the future harm us and that solitude might better his soul.
The theory of deterrence aims to prevent offenders from repeating the crime that they have been convicted of. Sanctions wit... ... middle of paper ... ...e and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That each case should be judged on the individual aggravating and mitigating factors associated with the offence and on the other individual details of the offence. The circumstances of the offender and the harm caused to the victim of the offence or to the community should have an impact on the severity of the punishment that the offender will receive. It is therefore accurate to say that punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
Although Beccaria believed that severity is a necessary element for deterrence, it should be limited depending on the extent of severity. It should be severe enough to make the offender realize that the reward of the crime did not outweigh the consequences. There are two types of deterrence, which are general deterrence and specific deterrence. “General deterrence intends to deter all people from committing crime by making an example of those who have” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 267). This creates a fear among people from penalties and convinces them that committing crime will cause more pain than pleasure.
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).
Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a lesson whatever action that participated in. Specific deterrence is founded on a principle called hedonistic calculus meaning, “an assumption that human nature leads people to pursue pleasure and avoid pain” (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010, p 155).
The first one is called general deterrence which has the goal of scaring society into not committing crime. This is the part of the theory that helps deter crime. The way this works is by arresting someone and giving them a harsher sentence so the next person who has thoughts of committing that crime can second guess their choices. When we arrest a small portion of offenders it can be beneficial because they are living proof of the consequences that possible offenders can reevaluate (Cullen and Jonson 70). The second kind of deterrence is specific deterrence which targets offenders and scares them into not wanting to return to prison.