Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the deterrence theory
Corporate crimes and the criminal justice system
Literature review on corporate crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the deterrence theory
3.0 Prevention
There are two theories that attempt to explain how to prevent corporate crime: deterrence theory and compliance theory. Theories of deterrence focus on preventing individuals from committing crimes based on a fear of the consequences. Compliance theories, on the other hand, concentrate on the power of regulatory agencies to encourage individuals to comply with the law before crimes are committed. The biggest difference in these theories is the way that laws are enforced on corporate criminals. Deterrence theories rely on criminal prosecutions to prevent corporate crime after the crime has already been committed (ex-post), where as compliance theories focus regulatory agencies that encourage compliance with the law before the crime takes place (ex-ante).
3.1 Deterrence Theory
Deterrence theory argues that individuals act in accordance with their self-interest and obey the law because they fear the penalties of criminal behavior. More often than not, they choose not to commit crimes because they have seen harsh punishments imposed on others. Current research on deterrence emphasizes the role of the criminal justice system enforcing and punishing offenders. The fear of detection, conviction, and punishment resulting from prosecution forms the core of deterrence theory. Therefore, individuals decide whether or not to commit crimes based by weighing the possibility of punishment from criminal prosecution
against their ability to profit from illegal activity. Although deterrence is one of the central objectives of the criminal justice system, there is little consensus as to whether or not prosecutions effectively deter corporate crime.
In a study conducted by the American Antitrust Institute, data were collected ...
... middle of paper ...
... is conducted and meeting compliance validates the operational quality of the corporation.
4.0 Conclusion
After a case like Enron, it is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for change that could effectively prevent corporate crime. The ideas presented in this paper suggest that regulatory agencies can play a fundamental role not only in encouraging compliance with the law, but also deterring corporate crime. It is clear that corporate crime has substantial effects on its victims, yet corporations or their executives are not always held accountable for their actions. Compared to criminal prosecutors, regulators have more knowledge and resources to monitor corporations and potential offenders better understand the penalties associated with regulation. For these reasons, the power of regulatory agencies to monitor business practices should be increased.
Houser, K. (2014). Nature of Crime, Deterrence Theory. Lecture conducted from Temple University, Ambler, Pa.
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 ...
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
The major goal of the Australian prison at the beginning of the 20th century was the removal of lawbreakers from their activities in society (King, 2001). The Australian legal system relies on deterrence (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119), that is, a system that has two key assumptions: (i) specific punishments imposed on offenders will ‘deter’ or prevent them from committing further crimes (ii) the fear of punishment will prevent others from committing similar crimes (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119). However it is not always the case that deterrence is successful as people commit crime without concern for punishment, thinking that they will get away with the crime committed (Jacob, 2011). Economists argue that crime is a result of individuals making choices
Today, worldwide, there are several thousands of crimes being committed. Some don’t necessarily require a lethal weapon but are associated with various types of sophisticated fraud, this also known as a white-collar crime. These crimes involve a few different methods that take place within a business setting. While ethical business practices add money to the bottom line, unethical practices are ultimately leading to business failure and impacting the U.S. financially.
Another reason it can be difficult to detect corporate crime is that directors within a corporation are unlikely to report the criminal activity of their colleges for the fear that it will hinder their own career success and could even lead to them losing their jobs. Within a company illegal practices could be seen by many as the “in thing” and the people work...
Deterrence – is connected to punishment where it is a way to let a person who has committed a crime know and to let the rest of society or those looking to commit a crime know it will not be tolerated or accepted and there is the possibility of some form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) If a person or society sees what can happen if they commit a crime by seeing what happens to others then they are more likely to obey the laws and live an honest lifestyle.
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
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
One of the major arguments in favor of the death penalty is that it deters future criminals. Many individuals are led to believe that if the potential consequence of killing someone is death, other individuals are going to be less-prone to kill one another. However, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that endorse death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have completely abolished capital punishment show no major differences in either crime or murder rates. The death penalty has absolutely no deterrent ef...
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 ...
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...
When we look at the laws that have been broken by so many of the top named corporations, I see why they continue to operate in the capacity that they do. When you take in to account the amount of money taken in for overall profits each year versus the fines levied “if” they are caught breaking the law I can see why they take their chances at being caught or not. Although the fines given are typically large amounts, they really are a mere slap on the wrist when compared to the money earned each
White-collar crimes and organizational structure are related because white collar-crimes thrive in organizations that have weak structures. According to Price and Norris (2009), the elites who commit white collar-crimes usually exploit weaknesses in organizational structure and formulate rules and regulations that favor their crimes. Makansi (2010) examines case studies to prove that white-collar crime is dependent on organizational structure. For example, the financial crisis that Merchant Energy Business faced in 2001-2002 occurred due to the liberal Financial Accounting Board, which failed to provide a standard model of valuing natural gas and fuel. Moreover, a financial crisis that rocked the securitization market in 2008 was due to fraudulence in the pricing of securitization products. These examples ...