The Deterrence Theory Of Punishment

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

The criminological theory behind deterrence is rational choice theory which assumes that offenders and regular citizens are the same but offenders commit crimes because of the circumstances they are put in. So, it is expected that any logical person would also commit that crime if put in that situation. Another important thing to note is the certainty and severity of crime. Certainty of a crime is how likely a punishment comes from a criminal offense. Severity of a crime is at what level the punishment it will be registered.

Deterrence Theory Deterrence Theory has three basic core beliefs. It believes that decisions are made by rational people who are exercising free will, individuals weigh the risks and rewards of violating or not violating the law, and that the risks and rewards are consistent for all persons (Deterrence Theory, February 6, 2014). To the Deterrence Theory, incarceration acts as a deterrent for those who are considering committing a crime. It takes into consideration the severity of legal penalties and the idea that in order for crime to be deterred, punishment should be swift and certain (Akers, 16). In other words, a person’s fear of punishment along with their knowledge of his/her probability of apprehension and punishment plays a role in the decision making of individuals who are considering committing a crime (Akers, 16).

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.

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).

Utilitarianism, on one hand, holds that the morality of actions is dependent upon whether or not they bring about good consequences. Criminal punishment, whether it be through incarceration, deterrence, of rehabilitation, seeks to prevent future crime, thereby benefitting the greater good. Deontology, however, has some objections to these justifications. If the punishment does not prevent future crime, then by deontological standards, we are only inflicting harm towards a person without the benefit of the greater good. Also, punishing people is equivalent to using them as a means and not an end, a violation of human dignity.