Essay Deterrence Theory of Crime

Deterrence theory is founded upon two types, general and specific. The idea behind deterrence is to make the sanction so abhorrent that it will deter the individual and society as a whole, although it should be stated that deterrence could be

375) and by using this hedonistic calculus people will refrain from committing crimes. This concept focuses on the punishment fitting the criminal and on preventing future crimes from occurring. The three most important factors in effectively deterring a criminal from further crimes are the severity of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment. If criminal doesn’t believe he will be punished or he feels the punishment is minor in comparison to the crime or if the punishment is not swift enough, then he/she will not be deterred from committing crimes. Studies on the effectiveness of deterrence have shown to be inconclusive. The deficient areas of deterrence are crimes committed in the heat of passions, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the massive backlog of cases in the nation’s courts (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008).

While watching this crime documentary over the craigslist killer a few thoughts came into my mind about the deterrence theory. I believe certain things can be implemented to deter criminals like Philip Markoff from conducting heinous crimes in our society. The first idea is making it certain that if committing those crimes the criminal will be caught. In my opinion this is a way better deterrence than punishment because it makes individuals think twice about their actions. For instance, the criminal’s goal is never be caught and continue to commit crimes so making very clear that you will be caught changes their thought is my opinion.

Deterrence is founded on the assumption that people make rational choices about rather or not they wish to engage in criminal behavior. Thus, it is believed that one would weigh the gain they expect to achieve from a particular crime, to the expected cost of punishment. Punishment encompasses the likelihood of being caught and punished as well as the expected severity of the punishment. Therefore, in order to effectively deter, planner and criminal justice professionals must look into three factors: the severity of the punishment, the certainty of punishment, and the celerity with which the punishment is imposed. However, the severity of the punishment must be proportional to the benefit the criminal expects to realize from the

Law, crime, and the concept of deterrence have existed simultaneously for thousands of years. Since Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden crime has been a prevalent aspect of society and always will be. Ever since there has been crime and as long as crime exists there will be efforts to deter people from committing crimes. Deterrence relies on fear and doubt to dissuade a person from committing a crime. However, does deterrence work? Many people think that deterrence does not work and tend to follow the logic of the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory says that everyone makes calculated choices based on the risk and the potential reward (Siegel, 2011).

There are three principles that the deterrence theory follows. The first principle is severe punishment. Its basis is any criminal penalty must be severe enough to outweigh the benefits to be obtained by crime. Our perceptions about the severity of punishment is, the more people suffer, and the greater the severity of that punishment, than the criminal has ‘paid’ for their crime. For example, capital punishment. There are only two options you can receive as

Every theory of crime has at least 2-3 meta-theoretical levels above it. The fundamental issues are usually addressed at the approach level, and are often called the assumptions, or starting points, of a theory, although the term "assumptions" more strictly refers to the background or domain boundaries one can draw generalizations about. Above the approach level is the Perspective level, the largest unit of agreement within a scientific community, and in fact, the names for the scientific disciplines. Perspectives are sometimes called paradigms or viewpoints, although some people use the term paradigm to refer to untestable ideologies such as: (1) rational choice; (2) pathogenesis; (3) labeling;

Many theories of crime are macro theories, which are used to explain crime based on a large group of people or society. While macro theories are the predominant type of theory used to explain crime, there are also a variety of “individual”, or micro, factors which are equally important. Two such individual factors s are maternal cigarette smoking (MCS) and cognitive ability, or Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

In this essay I will examine how government polices since the last general election have impacted crime levels. The economic model of crime pioneered by Gary S. Becker in 1968 describes how criminals weigh up the costs and benefits of criminal activity against the legal alternatives. The model has four main aspects in it, which are: the utility derived from legal work (U (W)), the likelihood of getting caught when engaging in criminal activity (p), utility from successful crime (U(W ͨ )) and the disutility from punishment when getting caught (U(S))

The concept of deterrence means that people should be punished to set an example for others. One assumption is that if a particular punishment is placed on offenders, it will keep them from committing others crimes. The next assumption is keeping others from committing crimes. According to Amnesty USA, different studies have shown different stances on whether or not the death penalty has an effect on crime. Other studies have shown that Over 80 percent of those polled believe that the present research does not support a deterrence effect for the death penalty (dealthpenaltyinfo.org).

The idea of capital punishment deterring crime is difficult to determine; some could rationalize that the death penalty should in theory stop potential murders from committing crimes. However, this rationalization has never been concretely proven. The research into capital punishment’s effect on deterrence is immense; however, the majority of research on this issue has differential findings. Although some research suggests conclusively that capital punishment deters crime, others found that it fails to do this. Understanding deterrence, the death penalty, and the results of

In classical theory, the main objective of study is the offence and the nature of the offender is a rational, free-willed, calculating and normal individual (Aker, 2012). However, it became apparent that some were more motivated to commit crime than others, regardless of deterrence. Therefore, the classical doctrine cannot account for re-offending. Based on empirical research done on convicted offenders, the notion of deterrence was rarely given thought of (Burke, 2013). Initially, most offenders give a lot of thought to the notion of punishment; however, in the process of committing the offence, offenders give little consideration to deterrence and consequences. As a result, this defies whether the purpose of deterrence is, in fact, achieving what it is meant to (Burke, 2013). The model is idealistic, that individuals could be controlled by the threat of punishment- by the likelihood of arrest, prosecution and

The article contains offenders committing crimes based off where they come from. For example, poverty is one of the main causes of why 70% of offenders commit crimes. Other causes of why offenders commit crimes are peer pressure, and lack of knowledge. Many people doesn’t have any what to do with their lives. It could be the cause of many things, such as; someone shutting them down mentally or physically. Lack of confidence gives the offenders no hope of making it out. So they commit crimes to make it out. Most people grew up of not having the same lifestyle as a rich person. I personally think it makes them jealous, so the offenders take it away from others. Deterrence is one way to prevent criminals from committing crimes. Theorist had come

Deterrence is a further purpose that needs to be highlighted. The aim of punishment is also to warn people from crime committing under the fear of being punished and it might be reached through the well-developed criminal justice system, one of the main aim of which is to ensure that every wrongdoer will be punished for the criminal acts. There are two kinds of deterrence. They are general and specific deterrence. Ferris defines specific deterrence as deterrence which attempts to persuade the individual before the court not to commit further offences, while general deterrence is defined as the process of persuading others who might be inclined to offend not to do so. Deterrence has its own pros and cons as well. One of the main deterrence benefits is that it may reduce crime rate significantly and sharply. For instance, there is a three strikes policy in most states of USA, which means that if an individual has already been in jail two times and if this person commits a third crime, she would be automatically sentenced for 25 years regardless of crime seriousness. On the other hand, the main drawback is that criminals usually think that they will not be caught, so they continue committing crimes.