Deterrence & Control Theories - Essay Example

Running head: Deterrence & Control Theories Deterrence & Control Theories [Institute’s Deterrence & Control Theories Sociologists often attribute human behavior to the phenomenon of motivation (Jensen, 2003). They say that any act that a person does has its base upon some sort of motivation either positive or negative. Moreover, human beings are such organisms which are appropriately associated with being active doers and always engaged in a variety of activities. DETERRENCE THEORIES There are many concepts in the deterrence model such as general deterrence, which aims more at the crime than the criminal and it deters the crime in a manner of issuing a law against such an act so that it becomes punishable the next time it occurs (Lebow & Stein, 1989). Secondly, there is an individual deterrence in which courts and other law practitioners get certain guidance as to how to deal with the first-time criminals or may be how to carry about sanctions on individual cases so that they deter from the act. Another form of deterrence is absolute deterrence when the threat and the punishment happen to a person who is close to the offender, and thus, he realizes that the same could also happen to him and his family and finally deters. The final form is of restrictive deterrence, when the offender commits one type of sin and refrains from it the next time while, experimenting other misdeeds in subsequent happenings. Deterrence theories offer certain assumptions regarding the implications that the legal/formal and informal controls might have their impacts on further involvement of the convicted persons in other criminal activities (Lebow & Stein, 1989). They say that if control of either type is exercised, it would reduce the number of criminal activities by the person in future. However, studies conducted at different places reflected quite a contradictory picture revealing that control, in the form of arrest, has no effect in the rate of crime pertained to domestic violence (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). Such a collective impact of the two controls are marked under the category of general deterrence, however, the function of informal control would be discussed under the category of specific deterrence and their hypotheses are discussed respectively. General Deterrence Hypotheses As discussed above, the general deterrence model incorporates the interface of both types of threats and the nature and extent of punishment that they include. There are mainly three hypotheses that come under this category, as elaborated below: The Conditional Hypothesis This particular hypothesis advocates that when the offender is more concerned and tied to the societal norms and values, only then, the legal threats in the form of punishment and arrest would be able to make him reluctant towards involving in further crimes. This way, since he feels an attachment to the conventional society, he would consider the punishment as a shame and a stigma and would refrain from such an act as much as possible (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). Furthermore, it also hypothesizes that an association with a conformist community might make the offender believe that he would be left in isolation and a sheer disrespect if he continues with his criminal activities. Such an intention makes him to avoid conviction (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). In the light of the work done by the sociologists such as Zimring, Hawkins, Tittle et al it will be appropriate to say that the unofficial endorsements of the society have far greater effects than the formal sanctions and it is only in the presence of informal controls that the formal controls could work. The Replacement Hypothesis The assumption that this hypothesis embarks upon is that the punishments and liabilities in the legal control work well in the absence of informal endorsements (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). In addition to this, it also includes that the criminals believe that the people who break the formal laws and regulations of a country/society punishable in the eyes of the law and they get what they deserve. When sociologists elaborate this concept they say that people who already have a tie with a conservative social setup would consider the societal values over everything and thus, they will not even think of offending the values. In such a case, the threat of being punishable by the laws seems extraneous. The Additive Hypothesis It advocates that deterrence depends upon the intensity of either type of the controls and both are of similar importance provided they are applied with intense measures (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). The greater the intensity of any one of the controls, the greater would be the impact upon the offender and the greater would be the deterrence. Throughout the literature rendered to the hypotheses and assumptions for the deterrence theories, it is apparent that many of the sociologists and criminologists have consented upon rejecting the conditional hypothesis on the basis of applying many survey methods. On the contrary much support is found for replacements hypothesis. Nevertheless, the most appropriate assumption that goes parallel with the general deterrence model is of the additive hypothesis that it could be either of the control that might deter a criminal offense but should be intense and influencing (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). Specific Deterrence Hypotheses The effect of formal controls, punishments and sanctions usually come under the umbrella of specific deterrence hypotheses. This model hypothesizes that legal punishments and sanctions always reduce the crime rates as the punished offenders become more reluctant and sensitive towards threats future times (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). However, it has a more continued version to this concept. It goes on stating that if the offender gets a label of being a criminal many a times and thus, he is caught, threatened and punished many a times, then he becomes vulnerable to punishment and feels no more stigmatized. This, in the long run, has an increasing effect in the criminal activities and also, in their intensity. Thus, this concept assumes that the legal sanctions and punishments have an entirely different kind of effect on the first encounter than it has on the subsequent encounters. Thus, the growing frustration and ferociousness with every encounter eventually makes the criminals geared up to take revenge from the laws, societies and victims (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). CONTROL THEORIES As mentioned earlier, the theorists who advocate control theories tend to see motivation as the primary factor that leads a person to criminal activities (Jensen, 2003). These motivations could be situational and diverse while these theorists, under the control theory, focus their attention upon the constraints that might hold back a law-breaking behavior of an individual rather than the motivation itself. However, speaking about the motivational forces, they conclude that it ranges from frustration, rage, revenge, and pleasure to tangible needs like stealing for hunger or other needs (Jensen, 2003). Control theory assumes that every living person is likely to behave in an offensive manner and is likely to act criminally as long as he sees benefit as the consequence of that act (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Benefits might include money or other sorts of pleasure inclusive of a likelihood of being undetected. This theory is equally applicable to all sorts of crimes white-collar crime, robbery or drug usage or any other form. Precisely, it makes humans seen as “mean animals” who seek their benefits and advantages in whatever act they do. Since they are more inclined towards gains through any means; the assumption goes on with saying that the people who are involved in criminal activities tend to see more gains in those activities rather than in those of non-crime. Nevertheless, as so many propositions and assumptions discussed above, there are more propositions that go consistent with control theory given by other sociologists and theorists. For instance, a social control theorist Albert Reiss (Jensen, 2003) says that a delinquent behavior of an offender is the result of his failure to personal and social control. Giving his assumption, he also gave his definition of social and personal control as to be consistent with the assumption. Thus, personal control, in his view, is the ability of an individual to act in accordance with the values and mores of his community and refraining from those, which are inconsistent with those values. Social control, on the other hand, as defined by Reiss, is the control put forth by the society and its ability to draw out certain rules and regulations that it expects its followers to abide by and to make sure that they follow it effectively. His perspective to give a clear view to the logic of control theory was precisely that if social and personal controls are working effectively and efficiently, then no motivation can serve as a cause for an individual to be delinquent. In control theories, it often comes that the collective impact of both legal and informal controls is perceived to be high in measure in reducing subsequent crime as compared to both form of controls taken as separate entities (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992). Sociologists argue that the control theory has its base upon the perception and phenomenon of a human-lead society (Jensen, 2003). According to this, they claim that human beings are not under any agreement or consent with other people in the society and thus, violence can not come under the category of a strange behavior. On the contrary, these theorists also say that such an assumption does not carry with it the fact that people are born “evil”. Thus, it is only the society that allots the designation of “good” and “evil” to certain acts or conducts, which in their perspective is good or bad, respectively. Such a perspective thus, has its root upon the consequences and nature of consequences that an act brings about (Jensen, 2003). In addition to this, control theory suggests that the offenders do not tend to make a choice between to-dos and not-to-dos. However, they are also not likely to analyze the differences and distinctions within the many crimes while, taking all as one (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). The behavior of offenders is thus, categorized as an “involved” behavior in the domain of control theory in which the criminal act is quite voluntary. On this basis, the theory of control is parallel to the theory of criminality (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). In “control-based perspective”, the elements that could reduce a criminal behavior are also mentioned. For instance, Walter Reckless (Jensen, 2003) suggests that the internal perspective of the individuals play a great role in controlling his behavior in delinquency. He talks about “self concepts” and says that there are internal mechanisms in the individual that signifies him and threatens him not to do certain delinquent acts. He proved this phenomenon through his study upon the individuals who lived in a criminogenic atmosphere. In his study, the kids who had a good image of themselves and considered themselves innocent and free from evils were more likely to refrain from delinquency than others. There are arguments by Reckless that control theory works best when the socialization pattern of an individual or prospective criminal is good. The roles of peers, friends, family and relatives have to be strong to keep the individual away from social evils. This means that if there is a healthy external control with an internal positivism, the activity of a criminal are likely to reduce in high measures (Jensen, 2003). Very much alike the above assumption, there is one more proposition that revolves around the arena of control theory. It suggests that if an individual is a member of any social organization then, he is vulnerable and an easy candidate for a group called “gang”. This, certainly, suggests that he is prone to become part of delinquency with an association to a group of experts in crime. This proposition also has an element of family socialization as its positive point that an individual would want to commit to gang socialization if he does not have anything or anyone at his back to lose (Jensen, 2003). In control theory this phenomenon is termed as “stakes in conformity” (Jensen, 2003/pp. 4). All in all, the control theory bases its assumptions and propositions on the fact that control from family or society is important to exercise. Once optimization of this control occurs, criminal activities will tend to reduce. And, self-control/self-concept is also another aspect to control such behaviors. References Cole, G. F. & Smith, C. E. (2008). Criminal Justice in America. Thomson Learning, Inc. Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag. Jensen, G. F. (2003). Encyclopedia of Criminology. Fitzroy Dearborn. Lebow, R. N. & Stein, J. G. (1989). “Rational Deterrence Theory: I Think, Therefore I Deter”. World Politics. Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 208-224. Sherman, L. W.; Smith, D. A.; Schmidt, J. D. & Rogan, D. P. (1992). “Crime, Punishment, and Stake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic Violence”. American Sociological Review. Vol. 57, pp. 680-690. Read More