There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the deterrence doctrine. The deterrence doctrine is dated back to its origins in the 18th century, known to be the Age of Enlightenment. During the 1700s to 1800s, the Classical School of Criminology became the focal point as it commenced to force attention on the “cruel” justice system. The two most influential scholars who have elaborated along the idea of deterrence are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria, known as the father of classical criminology, believed that people are “being motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and trying to avoid being in pain” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 132). The classical criminology is primarily founded on the notion of liberal volition. That is to say that …show more content…
These three elements are that punishment must be “swift, certain, and severe”; punishment must be “proportional to the damage caused by the crime”; and that the punishment should be “solely based on deterrence rather than vengeance” (Owen et al, 2012, p. 268). In order for deterrence to work the punishment should be swift. That is because the closer the punishment is to the crime, the more likely the offender would acknowledge the consequences. The offender must realize that he or she will be punished for the crime they have committed rather than believing they will not be punished. 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. “Specific deterrence intends to focus on individuals rather than the general public” (Owen et al, 2012, p. 267). That is by “preventing an individual, who has already been punished, from committing …show more content…
99-100). Bailey & Lott conducted their research by administering a questionnaire to 268 students enrolled in sociology courses at a sophomore, junior and senior level at an Urban Midwestern University (1976, p. 101). Freshmen were excluded as most would not fall into at least 19 years of age and would not be “subject to legal sanctions as adults for at least one year” (p. 101). Of the 268 questionnaires administered only two were excluded as the “students refused to cooperate in the investigation” (p. 101). The students were asked to “estimate their own chances of apprehension and conviction if they were to violate the law rather than those of ‘generalized other’ or ‘someone like themselves’” (p. 101). According to the pretest, it would be appropriate to say that “the method being used should focus upon self-perceptions in criminal involvement” (p. 102). The severity of punishment section of the investigation focuses on the students’ perceptions of severity sanctions. These were measured by asking them to apprehend: 1) “what would happen if they were caught by the police committing each of the five offenses (marijuana use, sale of marijuana, petty theft, grand theft, and shoplifting)”, and 2) “the reaction they would expect from parents and friends if they were caught committing each offense” (p. 102). The
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
There are several aspects within deterrence that are important to understand when discussing the theories of deterrence and labeling. According to the deterrence theory, there are two different classifications of deterrence—specific and general. First, specific deterrence is defined as apprehending an offender and punishing him or her which will refrain them from repeating crimes if they are caught and punished by the criminal justice system (Akers and Sellers, 16). Secondly, general deterrence is defined as the states way of punishing society for a crime that they have not committed, while using a certain group of people who have committed that crime. By doing so, those who are in charge of punishment, inflict fear on members
Short-term deterrence works in the here and now, moments such as a murderer just had the death sentence carried out deterring that criminal from acting again and spreading a fresh fear through other criminal minds of the risk that is in play with committing certain criminal acts against society. The short-term deterrence acts more like a word of caution, causing offenders and citizens alike to think or re-evaluate before doing due to the fear of death. Long-term deterrence, also known as general prevention, is more of a concept that must be true in order for the concept of deterrence to work within individuals and work in society and criminals alike. That concept is “that the existence of the death penalty for a crime has a ‘moralizing’ influence on people’s perceptions of the gravity of the crime,
Raymond T. Bye describes the basis for the theory of deterrence in the idea that the privilege to live and therefore an individual’s life is the most sacred and only thing any human really owns. Because of this, threatening an individual with the consequence of death will cause them to decide not to engage in the criminal activity. There is a spectrum of consequences that individuals mentally process for...
I do agree with his main aspects of punishment being severe, swift and certain. It is important to be severe to ensure that the consequence outweighs the benefits of the crime. Swiftness is equally as important in deterring crime. Beccaria stated, “Promptness of punishment is more useful because when the length of the time that passes between the punishment and the misdeed is less, so much stronger and more lasting in the human mind is the association of these two ideas, crime and punishment… one as the cause, the other as the necessary inevitable effect” (Schram and Tibbetts). Lastly, I agree with certainty being the most important component. The certainty of punishment has the strongest impression on individuals because they are aware of the repercussions for their actions. In addition, general deterrence and specific deterrence are also pivotal. Punishment is not limited to deterring a specific criminal, but it is intended to prevent all individuals from committing
One method of deterrence is “General Deterrence” , which is designed to "prevent crime in the general population" by making an example of the current offenders . More often than not , potential offenders acknowledge the punishment their criminal predecessor received, notices the stigma that follows that criminal, and decide on a different path .
She makes two points of difference between the views of deterrence and the moral education theory. First, in the moral view of education, the state is concerned to educate its citizens morally so they will not choose the wrong behavior (Hampton, 276). Secondly, the criminal is not to be used for social engineering (Hampton, 276). The second point is important. Deterrence justification of punishment is often used as a warning or an example to others to not do this action. Eventually, that would be a side effect of any public form of punishment which the moral view of education does not rule out. However, deterrence’s means to the end is a social purpose, using the criminal as the
Deterrence is a very effective method in achieving the goals of criminal sentencing. If society knows its punishment for a crime, this may be the entire deterrent necessary to prevent a crime from happening. However, if the crime is still committed then society must do what is required to deter the next possible criminal from performing the criminal act. This could be a vital step in the ongoing battle between the good guys and the bad guys.
In the year 2008 a study was administered by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock by the University of Colorado questioning if the death penalty acted as a deterrent to criminals. The study established that 80% of the world’s criminologist believe that the death penalty
The two procedures of deterrence are, general and specific. General deterrence try’s to find options to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Specific deterrence finds ways to prevent the criminals from re-offending in the future by punishing them for their previous criminal activities. Having the state impose the death penalty, helps deter indiv...
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 death penalty can in fact deter heinous crimes from being committed when it is lawful in a state. Social scientists have stated that the act of general deterrence, which is when the punishment deters potential criminals from committing crimes, keeps criminals from going through with crimes. However, it is more shown that premeditated crimes are usually the ones stopped by general deterrence, not crimes under passion. Heinous crimes have been reduced highly in the states that have a capital punishment law.
Deterrence punishment is a threat to deter people from offending. Deterrence is often contrasted with retributivism, which holds that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done.
During the last couple of decades, the criminal justice system has turned away from rehabilitation programs and focused on deterrence. Deterrence Theory is from the classical school era and part of the rational choice theories. The deterrence theory states that
Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. 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 use of punishment as a threat to prevent people from committing crimes is knows as deterrence. Deterrence also has a role to make the person or persons feel afraid or anxious. It rests on the theory that it is feasible to deter the rest of society from lousy conduct by arresting and chastising those as the example to others, even if th...