This fear is induced by the threat of legal punishment (Gibbs, 1979). There are two types of deterrence that include specific and general deterrence (Tibbetts, 2014). Deterrence works in the modern American criminal justice. For instance, Gibbs (1979) indicates that individuals are deterred by the knowledge of actual punishments that they will receive due to their crimes. Furthermore, Gibbs (2015) elaborates that some legislators were of the opinion that the reinstatement of the death penalty would reduce the rates of murder.
Deterrence Theory A special case of the rational choice theory is the deterrence theory, which emphasizes the costs of legal sanctions (Liska & Messner, 1999). While the rational choice theory was initially applied to the field of economics, and considered all costs, the deterrence theory was initially applied to the field of law and only considered legal costs. Accordingly, as a deterrent for committing crime, increasing the severity of punishment, increasing the certainty of punishment, and increasing the celerity of punishment will all increase the legal costs for committing crime and, consequently, decrease the benefits versus cost ratio. Furthermore, there is a specific deterrence and a general deterrence (Barkan, 2006).
Stafford and Warr discussed Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory. This theory was more so concerned with experience of punishment, and punishment avoidance. Staff and War theory argues that individuals have both indirect and direct experience with punishment as well. Examples these four factors are; direct also call specific deterrence with punishment would be when and individual is punished for robbing a bank and they indeed robbed the bank. Indirect experience with punishment, is also called general deterrence is when an individual is aware of others who are punished for the crime they have committed. Next would be specific deterrence which is also called direct experience with punishment. This type of punishment is when an individual has
Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.
General deterrence and Specific deterrence at first glance seems like it runs hand and hand. As you look closer and understand it better, you come to the realization that they are two different topics. General deterrence is focused on the legal punishment if you are caught committing a crime. Specific deterrence focuses on punishment of criminals that are apprehended. So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are. General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some.
Although supporters of the death penalty often suggest arguments that cite retribution for violent crimes as being instrumental in justice, several studies and research have revealed that taking the life of another human being through capital punishment only perpetuates a cycle of violence. Therefore, it is necessary to abolish the capital
The death penalty as the book calls it, is a “socialization process” where individuals grow up learning the consequences and remain inherently good, rather than, having to weigh the pros and cons of a situation. Statistics show that there is no measurable correlation between murder and the death penalty. Statistics can always be skewed In that other factors
Reiman begins his essay be explaining and describing the reasons in which he is against the common sense idea. The basis behind this theory is that common sense would tell someone that if something cost higher than something else, then fewer people will choose the item that cost more. Reiman offers three arguments in which he disagrees that the common sense idea will deter crime. The first one being that just because a person fears one penalty more than another, does not mean that this will deter the criminal behavior. It was stated that there is an equal likelihood of crime being deterred for the death penalty than there is for life behind bars.
I think general deterrence is important because it can help prevent people from committing crimes or make people stop doing the crimes they've been committing. General deterrence can also help people get back on their feet and eventually lead a normal, healthy life despite their past. It's important because it not only stops crime or prevents it but it also can repair the life of the person who was caught up in
Haag (2007) writes that the death penalty is feared more than imprisonment because of its finality in that the person is excommunicated from the living. As such, it is a more effective and necessary form of punishment. Berns (1996) writes that the law must be “inspiring or commanding ‘profound respect or reverential fear’” for it to be effective in deterring criminals. However, people in favor of abolishing the death penalty can argue that despite its deterrence benefits, the life of the murderer is important. This means that the victim’s life is less important even though the offender is the one who has committed a crime.
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, and the debate about its abolition is the largest point of the essay written by Steve Earle, titled "A Death in Texas”. This form of punishment should be abolished for 3 reasons; First, It does not seem to have a direct effect on deterring murder rates, It has negative effects on society, and is inconsistent with American ideals. To begin, the death penalty is unnecessary since it is ineffective at deterring rates of murder. In fact, 88% of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In opposition, supporters may argue that it may indeed help to deter murder rates as they have
Tony Farrar published an exploratory study applying the effects of deterrence theory in being watch towards law enforcement demonstrating the effects of body-cameras on officer’s behaviors. Farrar makes the point that, “most forms of species alter their behaviors once made aware that they are being observed” (Farrar 2013). With that in mind the study determined that those officers that wore body-cameras experienced twice as many use of force incidents (Farrar pg. 8). The author expresses the relationship between the dependent variable of use of force complaints compared to the independent variable involving body-cameras proved with a 95% confidence variable that body-cameras altered the behaviors of police officers dramatically. The calculations