Applicability of deterrence theory - Essay Example

Applicability of deterrence theory Individuals violate rules and regulations after assessing the consequences and benefits of their deeds. However, it is hard to ascertain the effectiveness of deterrence because a policy affects criminals and offenders that law enforcement agents notice. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why others do not break stated principles. Deterrence has two primary functions: general and specific. General deterrence aims at preventing the public that has no criminal history. Consequently, it highlights the turmoil that befalls offenders. These steps aim at discouraging the public from committing offenses. For instance, imposing of a death penalty and imposing corporal punishments. Although general deterrence gears towards stopping people from undertaking criminal acts, heavy punishments took place publicly. However, the U.S.A abolishes this kind of reprimanding since it is against human rights. Contrary, specific deterrence has a primary purpose of deterring each offender from taking part in unlawful acts. Importantly, hefty reprimanding leads the offender to shun from undertaking an illegal action. For example, a drunk driver ceases to drive while under the influence of alcohol due to the unpleasant experiences of being arrested, impounding of the car, and the police withholding their driving licenses. Therefore, the law enforcement agents should inflict pain in order to discourage such acts in the future. Deterrence theory dated back in the fourteenth century from the works of a classical philosopher like Hobbes, Cesare, and Bentham. These theorists objected the widespread practices by Europeans, and the spirituality of crimes that formed the basis of the traditions. Consequently, these thinkers developed the basis for modern deterrence theories in the field of studying crime. Contrary to religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes delineates people as neither good nor bad. Aquinas insists that men are ethical rather than evil. From Hobbes view, human beings chase their self-interests like material gain, security, and protecting their reputations. Consequently, humans pursue their interests in disregard of others. Therefore, they end up offending others and breaking the law. Hobbes argues that beings are reasonable enough to understand acts that lead to illegitimate behaviors and disagreements. This situation can be avoided by getting rid of perpetrators of injustice for the betterment of the community at large. Hobbes termed this practice a social contract. The society gets into a social contract with the government in order to avoid war, misunderstandings, and crime. As a result, the state is supposed to implement the social contract. However, violation of the law may still occur in spite the state performing their roles. Ideally, punishments for crime should not outweigh benefits of criminal behaviors. Therefore, deterrence is the reprimand that people get for committing offenses. Important to say, theories of deterrence are premised on three fundamental principles: severity, certainty, and celerity. The higher the intensity of the punishment the likelihood of a rational human being desisting from engaging in such crime increases. Therefore, criminal laws should impose hefty penalties in order to discourage citizens from committing a crime. “Punishment that is extremely severe is imprudent, but a punishment that is not serious enough does not stop crime.” (Schedler, George & Margret pp.27). Notably important, punishment is a commission for offender and aims at discouraging criminals from procuring crime. As a result, crime is contained by the severity of the consequences. However, deterrence theorist disallows torture as a way of making an individual to make confessions and execution of people as a means of rebuking their acts. Scared Straight Programs are initiatives that permit adult convicts to have contact with juvenile offenders and at times include jail tour. These programs usually involve adult inmates narrating the vicious, harsh, and undesirable conditions accrued by jail or incarceration junior criminals or at-risk youth in a safe setting. The anticipated result of these schemes is to rectify the behavior of young people by shocking, and arousing fear and consequently, preventing them from participating in further delinquent undertakings. However, Scared Straight Programs are insufficient in deterring delinquent acts. Therefore, participation in Scared Straight Programs can lead to increased delinquency. Youth involved in these programs had higher levels of recidivism and were prone to engage in criminal activities at a later date. In contrast, young individuals that had never participated in these schemes record a reduced level of involvement in crime. Notably important, Scared Straight Programs violates the fundamental sight and sound alienation prerequisites of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. Guidance given by Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) authorities indicate that the state must guarantee that all juvenile offenders are under the care of public officers during any period. Therefore, minor should not be taken adults’ jail section, lockups, and rehabilitation facilities as a means of rectifying their behaviors. Further, violation of JJDP Act risks grant finances available to some state through the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention. From the precepts of deterrence theories, punishments of situations that induce fear discourage offenders from committing crime. In the same vein, Scared Straight Programs gear toward ensuring that minors do not engage in crime. As a result, delinquents are subjected to an excursion around a jail setting. Consequently, they will be discouraged from engaging in further unlawful behaviors. Importantly, this program is a social contract that binds all citizens in the U.S.A. Therefore, the state has the legal mandate to enforce the policies and requirements of the scheme. However, the state should operate within the precincts of the law, JJDP Act. Consequently, the relevant authorities should implement the program without bias in order for the society to realize the benefits of the scheme. “Youth cannot correct their behaviors by being scared. Threats bodily Harm and sexual assaults against a juvenile are inappropriate ways of dealing with delinquents. This method causes permanent and temporary harm to minors.” (Ehrlich et al pp. 36).Consequently, it increases the chances of recidivism among many young individuals. Although it is prudent to hold youths accountable for their action and make them understand the extent of harm caused by their actions to the community, Scare Straight program are ineffective. However, therapeutic approaches are more effective than the Scared Straight program. In spite of the concentration of evidence, Scared Straight programs are still preferred and continue to be in effect. For instance, a scheme in Carson City, Nevada, brought juvenile delinquents on a visit to a grown-up’s Nevada state prison. A youngster purported that all inmates strived to abuse sexually and scrambled for their belonging. According to Schedler, George & Margret (2010) consecutive arrest of minor exposed to the initiative is one out of thirty individuals. A classic example of manhandling of youths, a group of security officers strip-searched students during a tour of a domestic jail in pretense they were using sound strategy to destroy the life of destructive children. In contradiction, positive effects of the intervention in Germany planned to scare straight Youthful of lawbreakers with ties to neo-Nazi and other organized hate groups. Canada also tried the program, and it work effectively. In the United Kingdom, a different initiative that employed Former prison guards to establish a mock of the prisons mood in public schools. This mechanism aimed at stopping any potential wrongdoer. Although criminal justice frameworks are at times based on the basis of the deterrence principle, discussions on the refraining effect of punishment proceed to be evident in a criminological research. Initiatives like boot camps for adolescent lawbreaker and scared straight agendas continue to rely on the deterrence theory. Around the states, ‘get tough ’regulations form part of the Act and threatens to incarcerate offenders. In an attempt to support experimental support, criminologists working towards extending deterrent ideas from the three precepts: Severity, certainty, and celerity. Therefore, expansions include modifications that bolster rational choice views. Ideally, prop ups for deterrence theory are much higher than the past two decades. Nevertheless, research states that modern criminal justice guidelines stress more on the intensity of punishment than its certainty. Reference Ehrlich, Isaac & Joel C. Gibbons. "On the measure of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and theory of deterrence." The Journal of Legal Studies (2011). Schedler, George & Margret . "Capital punishment and its deterrent effects." Social Theories and Practice (2010). Read More