Crime Deterrence: Methods and Potential Problems
Crime deterrence is the decline of crime, because people fear getting arrested and convicted. According to Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice by Howard Abadinsky “the classical school argues that because humans tend toward hedonism- that is, they seek pleasure and avoid pain- they must be restrained, by fear of punishment, from pleasurable acts that are unlawful.” People make a rational decision not to commit a crime because of the fear of arrest and conviction are taken into consideration.
Two Types of Deterrence
There are two types of crime deterrence, individual (specific) deterrence and general deterrence. “Specific deterrence is the belief that punishment will reduce the likelihood
…show more content…
There are three main methods, which are able to break off into smaller categories, that are used to deter members of society from committing crimes. Those main methods are the police, the court systems, and prisons. However, every positive must have a negative. Each of these methods has their own potential problems. Deterrence does not always work. For example, the deterrence theory is when people make a rational decision not to commit a crime because of their fear of arrest and conviction are taken into consideration. Though, this is not always true in many cases, such as when the offender was under the influence of drugs when he/she committed the crime. Their mind is influenced by the drug, and they are not thinking clearly enough to make a rational decision, such as the consequences of their …show more content…
Just the thought that they might be caught is a powerful deterrent for would-be criminals. There are several ways that police deter crime: visibility, warnings, tickets, fines, and arrests are a few of them. Police visibility is a great way to deter crime. A criminal would be less likely to commit a crime if they had seen a police officer in that area recently. Robert Apel’s paper, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, stated that the visibility of the officers, sometimes called cops on the corner, projects a credible threat of detection and apprehension. (Apel, 2013). Another way that police deter crime is by increasing their arrest and tickets. “Police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught.” (Five Things, 2016). When police have “crackdowns” on certain crimes, the general population begins to avoid committing those crimes, because the increased possibility of being caught. For example, when the click it or ticket law was enacted and the police were very strict about everyone wearing their seatbelts. Lots of people were pulled over and given tickets. More and more people began wearing their seatbelts, especially if that was an area that a cop was known to wait
Specific deterrence applies specifically to individual offenders who have been previously sentenced. The severity of the punishment for an offence should keep the specific one individual from reoffending (Siegel et al, 2013, p.83). This focuses on individuals.
Houser, K. (2014). Nature of Crime, Deterrence Theory. Lecture conducted from Temple University, Ambler, Pa.
In the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, the introduction of the reconceptualized deterrence theory was presented, explaining that general and specific deterrence are both functions of crime. Mark C. Stafford, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Rural Sociologist at Washington State University, and Mark Warr, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, introduced this theory. They argued that there is no reason to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that centers on indirect experience with legal punishment and punishment avoidance and direct experience with legal punishment and avoidance.1 General deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal acts performed by others and the consequences or absence of consequences from the activity. Specific deterrence relies upon personal experience of punishment and the avoidance of punishment for a criminal activity previously committed. Both Stafford and Warr theorized that people are exposed to both types of deterrents, with some people exposed to more of one type than the other. In addition both general and specific deterrence effects may coincide with each other and act as reinforcement.
The three-strikes law is defined as “judges sentence offenders with three felony convictions (in some states two or four convictions) to long prison terms, sometimes to life without parole (Cole 2014). The purpose of the three strikes law includes is incapacitation and deterrence (Cole 2014). The purpose of a sentencing and the goals of punishment ideally are meant to correspond to each other. The goals of punishment include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restorative punishment (Cole 2014). Deterrence is broken down into either specific or general deterrence. General deterrence is defined as punishment of criminals that is intended to be an example to the general public and to discourage the commission of offenses”. Specific deterrence is defined as “punishment inflicted on criminals to discourage them from committing future crimes”. Lastly, incapacitation is defined as “depriving an offender of the ability to commit crimes against society, usually by detaining the offender in prison” (Cole 2014). Two empirical articles research the effectiveness of the three strikes law on crime trends, the impact the law has on population prisons, effect on a prisons budget,
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
Unfortunately, evidence has shown that mandatory minimums and severity of punishment as a whole is sorely ineffective as a deterrent for crime. The idea of punishment as a deterrent hinges on the perception of criminals as rational actors who, before committing a deviant act, weigh the potential costs and benefits logically (Renke, 2001). Crime is not always the product of careful reflection, many instances are snap judgements which occur too fast to consider the outcomes. In addition, deterrence assumes that criminals are aware of the law and the punishments which will come as a result of crime. As has been already mentioned, the public is largely unaware of the finer details of the criminal justice system, criminals included. To compound this issue, those who are most unaware and uneducated about the law are those of low socio-economic status, which puts them at an increased risk of offending. As Renke notes, based on a meta-analysis of other literature regarding deterrence, the perceived fairness of the law and the criminal justice system factors into whether or not policy can be a deterrent. If an individual or group believes the system to be unfairly biased against them then the authority of the law holds less deterrent weight (2001). Considering that those of low
This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders. This research is tied to a larger theory that harsh punishments act as a deterrent to crime. They work by making people not commit a crime for fear of the punishment that is going to follow. This research is applicable across many facets of crimes that are rampant. It is going to help identify whether enacting stricter laws and enforcing them helps in reducing the relate...
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
Deterrence: This philosophy is made to discourage criminals from committing future crimes. Deterrence include prisons, or execution. If you send a criminal to prison, or executing them, this will discourage the other criminals from committing the same crime.
Specific Deterrence vs. General Deterrence: The purpose of punishing and threatening to punish civilians is to diminish or at least limit the frequency of societies’ criminal activity, in terms of deterrence. The wholly aim of deterrence is to obstruct an individual’s potential offense by means of insertion of fear. Specific deterrence solely applies to individuals who have been administered with some type of punishment, that ultimately render him/her with fear of being penalized again when he contemplates on offending in the future. On the other hand, general deterrence applies to the public at large. It refers to a general understanding and fear that certain unlawful behaviors will be followed upon by a punishment.
Ronald V Clarke originally developed the idea of situational crime prevention in the 1980’s (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). This particular crime prevention theory addresses techniques that increase the effort required to commit the crime, increase the risks involved with committing the crime, reducing the reward gained by the offender after committing the crime, reducing the provocation between the offender and others and remove excuses (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Majority of crime is believed to be committed because there are no high risks of being caught and the rewards outweigh the risks (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Increasing the effort by controlling access to locations and target hardening can deflect many offenders, as more effort is needed to commit the crime (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005). Another main technique would be to increase the risks; this may be achieved by extending guardianship, creating natural surveillance or artificial surveillance such as CCTV (Brantingham & Brantingham 2005).
The term criminal desistance refers to when offenders desist, or stop, committing crime. Desistance from crime exists when an individual has an absence of criminal behavior in their lives for a sustained period of time. By studying desistance, a better understanding of what causes individuals to commit crime is created; as well as, a better understanding as to why certain individuals discontinue their lives of crime. The criminal justice field often encompasses, serving justice by locking people up and keeping the “bad guys” away from the general public. Little thought was given as to what can be done in order to help prevent people from committing crime, until more recent years. Most criminological theories attempt to explain why people commit
Society is always looking for ways to prevent crime. Alternative crime prevention strategies are constantly developed to keep up with an evolving society and changing offending behaviours. Crime prevention strategies aim to reduce the likelihood of criminal behaviours and opportunities for crime. The two main areas of crime prevention are situational crime prevention and social crime prevention. Situational crime prevention aims to make it more difficult for criminals to carry out a crime and therefore stop a crime before it is committed. Social crime prevention attempts to address the underlying social factors that may lead to criminal behaviour. They both use their various techniques in order to effectively reduce criminal activity within
Approaches to crime prevention have emerged over time and are demonstrated in different solutions, practices, and policies executed by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community. Some of the dominant approaches to crime prevention currently used by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community are: situational crime prevention, crime prevention through social development, crime prevention through environmental design, community crime prevention, reduction of recidivism, and policing. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the dominant approaches used for crime prevention and analyze which approaches are most effective. I will identify and apply at least four approaches used in law enforcement, legislation, courts, corrections, family, and community within the crime prevention programs.
Deterrence suggests that people are “deterred” from a crime by the threat of punishment. In other words, people won’t commit a crime if the ramifications that were to follow are so severe. Deterrence comes in two flavors, specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the “threat of punishment” being directly aimed towards a particular individual who has already committed the crime through actually experiencing the punishment first hand. An example of this may be, being convicted of a crime and as a result being sentenced to so many years in jail or prison. However, in order for it to be successful, the “previously ...