Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophy of deterrence
Advantages and disadvantages of deterrence
Deterrence philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The search for improved methods of crime control has been unending. What are the assumptions upon which criminal deterrence theory is based? Are these assumptions valid? What are the hidden implications of the criminal deterrence theory? Is it wise to continue to expend society's energies in the battle against crime with deterrence as a guide?
Criminal deterrence has been divided broadly into two categories, prevention and deterrence, each of these categories has been divided further into two subcategories, special and general. In the broad usage, a deterrent is anything which exerts a preventive force against crime. Usually, but not necessarily, we are interested in the preventive effects of crime control measures which are introduced by law enforcement agencies .
In this case, an interest in the broad deterrent effectiveness of these measures is an interest in their crime preventive effectiveness by whatever means prevention is achieved. Accordingly, a person contemplating the commission of a crime would undertake a cost-benefit analysis and would execute the criminal plan only if potential benefits sufficiently outweighed expected costs. In addition to theorists, courts have adopted the rational actor model as a justification for the imposition of certain penalties, specifically the death penalty for the crime of murder.
Under general deterrence theory persons are punished for violating the criminal law to serve as object lessons for the rest of society. Society, according to the theory, thus transmits the following message. It is wrong to behave in certain ways, and if a person behaves in one of those ways and fails to obey the law, society will punish him or her accordingly. The expression of society's disapprobation is pu...
... middle of paper ...
...ty. Deterrence theory condones human sacrifice, and, thus, victimization acquires a degree of social utility.
As a conclusion, for too long criminal deterrence theory has been a small tail wagging a very large dog. A more appropriate focus is on the perceived legitimacy of the social order and how this perception can be engendered and strengthened. Maintenance of societal order cannot be attributed to the efficacy of threats of punishment alone. One useful lesson may be drawn from the habituating effects of the criminal law: experience suggests that perhaps most members of society are law abiding because they recognize the benefits of social order and not because they fear apprehension and punishment for violations of the criminal law. Legitimacy of the social order and its impact on crime therefore deserve more extensive research, examination and emphasis.
Houser, K. (2014). Nature of Crime, Deterrence Theory. Lecture conducted from Temple University, Ambler, Pa.
Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitate Effects (1978), Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates National Academy of Science, Washington DC
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
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 relies on theory that people will refrain from participating in homicide or crime if they perceive the threat of swift and certain punishment, the death penalty could be made a more effective deterrent if executions were televised and reached a larger audience on a regular basis” (Bryjak, 2001).
9. Sherman L., Gottfredson D., MacKenzie D., Eck J., Reuter P., Bushway S. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1997.
...us the risks. By showing how a person’s actions change through a change in the risk of getting caught, the punishment, or the earnings a criminal might earn from his activity, economists help show that criminals to try to maximize their utility whenever they are considering an illegal activity. The economic framework for crime has been expanded to apply to many different areas of economics relating to crime such as: gun control, gangs, illegal drug use and policy in order to get an established view of the economic facts in order to show correlations between individuals and the decisions they choose. Economics can and has been used to create models that explain areas of crime that psychologists, sociologists, and other studies are unable to address as economists have effectively with their models and offers an empirical and statistical approach that provides models
Conscious efforts to critique existing approaches to questions of crime and justice, demystify concepts and issues that are laden with political and ideological baggage, situate debates about crime control within a socio-historical context, and facilitate the imagination and exploration of alternative ways of thinking and acting in relation to crime and justice. (p. 3).
There are different principles that makeup the crime control model. For example, guilt implied, legal controls minimal, system designed to aid police, and Crime fighting is key. However one fundamental principle that has been noted is that ‘the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal processes’. (Packer, 1998, p. 4). This is very important, because it gives individuals a sense of safety. Without this claim the public trust within the criminal justice process would be very little. The general belief of the public is that those that are seen as a threat to society, as well as those that fails to conform to society norms and values should be separated from the rest of society, from individuals who choose to participate fully in society. Consequently, the crime control model pro...
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).
middle of paper ... ... John Lamperti said, “If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, which would weigh in the balance against capital punishment's heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been shown to exist; the only proven effects of capital punishment are its liabilities. ”9
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However, it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process. Furthermore, can formal social control institutions such as the criminal justice system and the government provide the best aspect of producing conformity and law abiding behaviour? Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory is concerned with what effect formal institutions have on conformity in individuals and in particular, how law abiding behaviour is produced due to these institutions (Walklate, 2005).
This research is very important in determining the measures to take to be a deterrent to this crime. There are many approaches to dealing with crime. There are preventive methods that seek to prevent a crime from happening. There is also a punitive method of preventing crime that work by making the penalty for committing a crime very high. It prevents people from committing a crime and offenders from repeating the crime.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
The question “how do we reduce crime” has been asked for many years. Numerous amount of research has been done on this topic to see if there are other ways to reduce crime. Reducing crime has been a heated debate for many years and continues to be an important topic to study. People often wonder if the policies that are currently in place even work to reduce crime. Statistics have shown for years now that the current techniques being used by police are not as effective as the some people might think there are. According to Weisburd and Eck (2004) our strategy for reducing crime has been based on the standard model for policing. According to this model, it can be applied to all people and situations as a way to reduce crime (Weisburd and Eck, 2004). Many argue that this model states that basic techniques can be used in all situations regardless of how much crime or types of crime there is in that location. This model has been criticized because it is too basic and doesn’t apply to every situation (Weisburd and Eck, 2004). Weisburd and Eck (2004) also found that this model had little effect on crime reduction. The goal is to find new ways to reduce crime because this model is not effective and it not working. Research has since found useful deterrents for crime. Although research has shown that many policies that are in place are ineffective, there are some other strategies that have successfully lowered crime rates.