Pros And Cons Of Deterrence

The essential aim of punishment for crime has been a gruesome debate in criminal law for the past century. Deterrence has risen from becoming one of the insignificant purposes of the sentence to the most critical aspect. Majority of law interpreters are of the opinion that deterrence is an essential part of the legal structure. Some, however, are for the contrary view as well as most criminologists. Economists on their part have been known to be the fiercest proponents of this concept. They argue that lawlessness has its disadvantages and if a potential offender weighs the price he has to pay for an offense against what he will gain it deters him from committing the crime. If the punishment is substantial enough, the wrongdoer will take a step back before making the resolve to go ahead. The statement above is evidence that there has been no consensus and this argument has for a long time been a focus of scholars.

The other goal is to discourage the offender from repeating the crime and other members of society from committing an act similar to the offenders. There exist two levels of deterrence: specific deterrence, which focuses on an individual (offender) (Beatty, Samuelson & Abril, 2018). Punishment is imposed on a defendant with the belief that they will make a less likely venture into crime from that point onwards for fear of another sentence that may be even more severe. General deterrence imposes suspicion of committing a crime on society. When the punishment of an offender becomes known to the general public, it is believed to instigate fear and people will be less likely to commit a crime fearing