Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Deterrence theory principles
Impact of capital punishment
Capital punishment arguments for and against
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Deterrence theory principles
Deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior, and assume that in calculating the gains and losses from killing, potential offenders are aware of the death penalty and regard it as a more severe sanction than imprisonment. Because the threat of one's own death presumably outweighs the rewards gained from killing another, murder is not an option for most people and always discouraged. In addition, some noted proponents assert that capital punishment provides an important educative function in society by validating the sanctity of human life (Berns, 1979; van den Haag, 1975; van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Despite this logic, some challenge the applicability of deterrence to murder. Rather than being a product of deliberation and calculation, it is known that most murders are emotionally charged and their crimes are spontaneous events; they are "acts of passion" or result from a situated transaction rather than from deliberation (Bowers & Pierce, 1980; Chambliss, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). Indeed, a significant proportion of homicides may not be intended. The situation escapes calm discussion, or due to some extraneous factor, an assault victim dies. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that perpetrators ("killers") give serious thought to whether they reside in a death penalty jurisdiction, or the possibility of execution.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...New England area and northern-more Middle West area, and the higher rates found in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. Sellin grouped the states according to geography but made sure that the populations of each group also had similar social and economic conditions. Within these groups he found it impossible to distinguish the abolition state from the non-abolition states according to crime rates. Therefore, he found the homicide death rates of these grouped states to be similar, no matter their position on the death penalty. The inevitable conclusion is that all things remaining the same, executions have no discernible effect on rates of homicide. This study sparked debate and lead many other researchers to conduct their own analysis of data at different points in time up to the present in order to support or contradict Sellin’s findings in accordance with their own views.
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.
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
The death penalty has been around since the beginning of time as a means of punishing criminals, undisputed until the last century or so in terms of whether or not it is an ethical practice. The proponents for the death penalty offer up its ability to deter crime as their main reason for supporting it, their view supported by a functionalist sociological view in that using the death penalty, enough fear will be generated that people will refrain from committing the types of crime that the death penalty is applicable to (Schaefer, 2009). Another reason for favoring it are of an emotional nature; if a person commits a crime of a particularly horrible nature, many may feel that they deserve the death penalty, feeling that “an eye for an eye” is befitting for such a case (Jillette, Teller, & Price, 2006). It should be asked though, is emotional response and a theory of deterrence enough to justify the use of the death penalty? In this paper, I will answer that question and others.
If an action would run a high risk of getting yourself killed, you might think twice before committing such an act. If taking one guilty life can save even one innocent life, it’s doing its job. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis that produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, seven lives were spared due to deterrence.3 Deterring a future killer from taking a life does not only save that victim's life, but it might also save the would be killer’s life. They might see how committing this one act would literally end their own life, and because the fear of death looms over everyone, they may refrain from doing
A popular belief among those who advocate Capital Punishment is that the Death Penalty deters future murderers. However, there is no statistical evidence that proves this is in fact effective. Furthermore, there is no evidence which states the death penalty is any more effective in deterring murder than life imprisonment. Deterrence is also at its most persuasive when it takes place soon after a crime. For example, a child learns not to put his or her hand on a hot stove top because it results in immediate pain and a burnt finger. Because the death penalty takes years to be put into effect deterrence is less effective.
Question 1: A popular objection against deterrence-based legal punishment is that it would justify punishing the innocent, an objection that critics of the theory consider to be decisive. The first element of this objection is clarifying the definition of punishment so that it can successfully be incurred on innocents. From there, the weight of the argument falls on how our moral judgments against punishing the innocent are a priori and universal rather than an empirical observation on this world. This aims to refute an anticipated reply to the fundamental concept of this argument, this being that punishing the innocent is immoral regardless of its utilitarian effect, up to a certain extent at least. However, this does not succeed at being a decisive rejection of the theory.
Generally it is understood that a person will make a choice or take an action based on the possible outcomes or consequences. Combining the notions of decision making with criminal behavior, one would find that a path has been made to the idea of deterrence. Kubrin, Stucky, and Krohn (2009) explain that deterrence encompasses the ideas that an individual will weigh his or her options in reference to a criminal act and will make a choice based on the perceived risks. Those perceived risks are consequences or fears of being punished.
For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis, which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. (Kanitz) Supporters of Ehrlich in follow-up studies have produced similar results. Additionally, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure, are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty, have lower murder rates than those that do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.
On the other side of the debate, there are those that believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. For most criminals, they are aware of the fact that if they get caught, they will be sent to prison. However, other than being sent to prison, there are not really any other repercussions for committing a crime. They argue that if a person were to be presented with the possibility of the death penalty, they would more than likely think twice about their actions and realize that there are more risks than just im...
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 can be outlined as “principles of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment, proportionality, specific and general deterrence” (Burke, 2009). In order for the punishment to be effective it has to be certain, swift, severe. Certainty is more important than the severity in deterring crime. Deterrence theory confirms that if the punishment contains these three elements people will rationally calculate that there is more to be lost than there is to be gained from crime (Gordon, 2010). Deterrence functions in two ways. General deterrence is the punishment of the offender to be set as an example for others in the society and specific deterrence focuses on repeat offenders to refraining them from the act (Burke, 2009). The purpose of general deterrence is to abstain others considering committing the crime. It was argued that when the certainty, severity, and celerity of criminal sanctions are high in a population, criminal behaviour will be low. Studies suggest that capital punishment has been ineffective, other studies show that more homicides occurred when the death penalty was publicized (Pacotti, 2005). Then a comparative research shows that 5 countries with the highest homicide rate do impose the death penalty average 41.6% murders for every 100, 000 people, whereas the five countries that don’t impose death penalty is 21.6% for every 100, 000 (Gordon, 2010). Deterrence also has little affect on domestic cases, drunk driving, and shoplifting. Deterrence is well said in a theory but in reality ...
Jacoby believes the death penalty protects society by threatening future murders with fear. Gaes believes the death penalty is necessary because the overpopulation in prisons causes emotional and physical distress. The stronger side of the debate seems to be that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all nor does it help the victim’s family heal. It would be useful to know whether or not death-penalty states as a whole have lower rates of crime than non-death penalty states when arguing for the death penalty.
The debate on whether the death penalty deters murder or not is long-standing. Looking at both views on the death penalty gives insight on why it remains a relevant debate. Deterrence is one of the primary objects of the criminal law. Its primary goal is to discourage members of society from committing criminal acts out of fear of punishment. Capital punishment is a criminal, philosophical, social, and often cultural issue.
The study “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists”, was published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, came to a conclusion that there is an enormous number among America’s top criminologists that the research conducted on the deterrent question of the death penalty fails to support the threat of the death penalty. To be more specific the numbers show that in 1996 only 11.9% agreed that the capital punishment is a deterrent and in 2004 the number show that only 5.3% agreed that the punishment is a deterrent. This number show us how criminologists stop believing that the death penalty is a deterrent therefore is hasn’t affect to stop
A survey carried out in September by The New York Times using government statistics in a state by state analysis, has revealed that over the past 20 years the homicide rates in states with the death penalty has been between 48% and 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. In 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment the homicide rates are below the national average despite having similar demographic profiles to those states which retain the death penalty. The Study also found that homicide rates rose and fell along roughly symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty, suggesting that the threat of the death penalty rarely deters criminals.