PUNISHMENT AS A MECHANISM TO MAINTAIN BILATERAL COOPERATION: A SOCIAL BEHAVIOR EXPERIMENT October 1st 2014 KAIRONG HONG AND LIANG ZHANG Central South University Hypothesis and Methodology. Hypothesis 1: Individuals will display behavioral heterogeneity in their response to different punishment experiments. Hypothesis 2: In comparison with second-party punishment, third-party punishment will involve a reduction in the punishment cost. Hypothesis 3: Third-party intervention will enhance the potential impact of punishment for behavior that would result in unfair income distribution. Hypothesis 4: In comparison with second-party punishment, third-party intervention will enhance the probability of punishment occurring. Method: They recruited a total of 88 students from Central South University in Changsha, China. The students were put into 4 groups . Students were from different classes, years and 56% were women and 44% men. The experiment: Which was composed of three parts. The first part, included reading and following the instructions. In the second part, were question about them self for example age, birthdate, where they lived. The third part, was computer-based experiments. …show more content…
Under the premise of compulsory expropriation, Player B (the relocating household) received a passive income distribution from the developer (Player A, in the role of dictator). In this experiment a third party was not introduced. Assuming the initial market average price of the real estate being expropriated is US$800, Players A and B both know that expropriation produces an appreciation in its value assumed here to be US$1,600. Therefore, the assumption in the game was that the income distribution would include both the value-added income of Player A and the compensation income of Player
The experiment began with Milgram placing an advertisement in the local newspaper to recruit volunteers for his experiment. The experiment began with the introduction of the other participant, the other participant being an ally of Milgram’s. Afterwards, each participant would draw straws to decide which role they would take up, the “teacher” or the “learner.” However, the decision was always fixed so that the participant would always end up being the teacher. The learner would then be strapped to an electric chair by the teacher and would have a list of words read to him to be
The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences that punishes an individual beyond the formal sentence. Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “Social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to operation of law.
The impact of 'three strikes' laws. Christian Science Monitor, 91, 1-5.
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
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 participants were 113 undergraduates at a Canadian University. The ages ranged from 17 to 49 years in age. More than half of the participants however were under the age of 20.The participants were 81 women and 29 men. Most participants reported ethnicity as White (77.9%). Other ethnicities reported were Asian (9.7%), native (3.5%) and other (8.8%).
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
Going into details of the article, I realized that the necessary information needed to evaluate the experimental procedures were not included. However, when conducting an experiment, the independent and dependent variable are to be studied before giving a final conclusion.
Eagan, Jeffrey A. “Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects and Capital Costs.” Law.columbia.edu. Columbia Law School, 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
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...
Influences on Differences between Men and Women." Research in Higher Education. 48.6 (2007): 669-694. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
The principle of proportionality obliges courts to enforce sentences that allow a proportionate correlation to the offender behaviour in question. The principle drives the prevention of the burden in sentencing that is manifestly excessive or lenient. The sentence is supposed to express society’s emotions of the offense and allows dealing with an offender fairly (Kannai, 2004). It has been debated that proportionality is connected to retributivism (Demleteiner et al. 2003), however, proportionality has also been depended on to upkeep utilitarian objectives of penance, such as deterrence. It has been argued that a structure of justice that dispenses proportional sentences can motivate offenders to commit offenses of a smaller severity to obtain a lesser sentence if found (Von Hirsch & Ashworth, 2005) in turn presenting the principle as effective and a deterrent within itself. The principle is a major device for guaranteeing that rulings enforced upon offenders are reasonable. It functions to ‘restrain excessive, arbitrary and capricious punishment’ (Fox & Freiberg, 1999). It is of utmost significance to sentencing law and is a value that is engrained in defence for the basic human rights of individuals before the court (Fox,
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
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...
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.