Dynamics Of Crime And Delinquency - Research Paper Example

Dynamics Of Crime And Delinquency Deterrence theory assumes that people try to avoid pain and instead seek pleasure. Deterrence theory follows that the choices made by individuals are based on the end results of such acts. Proponents of deterrence hold that people obey or disobey laws after examining the gains and consequences of their acts. In this context, it is clear that deterrence occurs when people avoid committing crimes because they fear unpleasant consequences or costs of that will be imposed on them. There are two common types of deterrence theory that include general and specific. General deterrence aims at preventing crime among the general population. It states that the punishing offenders warn the rest of the population from engaging in the same crime. General deterrence is meant to make people aware of the horrors and sanctions thus scaring them from committing crimes. Since the general deterrence was meant to deter those, who witness the infliction of pain on the criminal, corporal punishments, were traditionally carried out in public so that it could scare off people from repeating such crime (Hugh and Scott, 2010). Specific deterrence on the other side is designed to deter only the individual offender from repeating the same crime. Proponents of specific deterrence hold that severe punishment will deter the offender from committing a similar crime in the future. A student severely punished for bullying a fellow student is likely not to repeat the same act in the future. Deterrence theories are good examples of correctional measures that are helpful in solving criminal acts in our schools. However, not all crimes are easy to solve because some are more complex than others. Additionally, not all the crimes attract similar penalties. An important factor that hinders application of deterrence in our schools is the individual differences among the students. Not all students experience threat of a correctional punishment. Some students, for instance, are short sited, more impulsive, inebriated, or are under the peer influence and they, therefore, tend to repeat the same crimes. Some crimes are easy to deter than others, and some people easily respond positively to deterrence than others. For instance, in schools it is easier to deter bullying than to curb drug and substance abuse because drugs become a habit, and individual students are likely to become addicted. Additionally, deterrence may not apply to some people because of their personalities and their emotional response (Barlow & Kauzlarich, 2010). Importantly, general and specific deterrence does not apply equally to all situations. Some crimes are best deterred by general other than the specific deterrence and vice versa. Bullying has captured the attention of most teachers in schools because of the adverse effects it has on the victims and their parents. Teachers are under much pressure to find ways of eliminating bullying in schools. Some schools have established rules and regulations aiming at curbing the crime in schools. However, bullying remains a threat to many new students who are likely fall prey of the bullies. Deterrence theory plays an important role in stopping bullying only if applied appropriately. The most appropriate type of deterrence that can apply in curbing bullying in schools is the general deterrence. This is because general deterrence is effective and can be applied to many students within a very short period. In order to make deterrence appropriate, educators need to apply several strategies (Bursik, 2009). First, educators need to apply zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies require the educators to administer harsh and severe punishments that often include suspension or expulsion of students found bullying others. The educators need to communicate this policy to all the students making it clear to them that there is no tolerating any inappropriate conducts within the school. However, bullying is a relationship problem, and teachers need first to consult the parents before applying the policy so that they can establish if there are any psychological problems. Therefore, educators should work hand in hand with parents to ensure that the zero tolerance policy is fully implemented. Learners after observing the harsh penalties the bullies receive are likely to be deterred from committing the same act. Additionally, harsh punishments given to the bullies should be done in an open environment and the presence of all the learners. This acts as a warning to the rest of the students with similar motives and a lesson to the offenders (Barlow & Kauzlarich, 2010).  Secondly, students should be given a stake in conformity because any threat of punishment only works if people have something they value in life that they may lose if they do not conform. For example, poor grade hurts a student because he or she will miss a college or scholarship. The best thing that educators can do to deter students from mistreating others is to involve the students in social activities that they enjoy so that any school or parental threat to punishment holds weight. Students, who value certain social activities, will feel the impact of disobedience if they are denied the chance to participate in them as a result of mistreating their fellows. Students, who witness others being punished for bullying, will develop a culture of fear because they do not like the impacts of such acts (Shelly, 2011). Thirdly, general deterrence will work best if educators and teachers develop a positive school climate that stimulates and creates respect among the students and between the teachers and their learners. In an environment where there is a positive relationship, everyone takes up responsibility and trust and care are built such that everyone is connected to the school. Research indicates that the environment with positive relationships helps reduce problems (Bursik, 2009). A sense of collective responsibility and concern make students believe that adults are there to help them genuinely. Since positive school environment has an overall few challenges of bullying, a self-fulfilling prophecy is achieved where bullying is something that does not just happen and is ignored, but instead, it is addressed and stopped immediately. Learners see the impacts of bullying and become less inclined to resort to bullying in conflicting situations. Conclusively, deterring harmful behaviors in the society demands that law enforcers pass and implement legislation and policies. Similarly, in schools, educators and parents need to come together and design ways of deterring bullying without necessarily inflicting harsh punishments on the learners. The simple fact is that students or teens may not be deterred by threats of punishment irrespective of how severe it may be. These same pupils could be prevented from mistreating others by establishing caring relationships with fellows or involving them in activities they value. Application of a deterring strategy also needs to consider some of the factors behind bullying. Examples of such factors include psychosocial problems, personality and individual differences. By looking at the history of the deviants in schools, educators will be able to utilize deterrence strategy effectively within the school premises. References Barlow, H., & Kauzlarich, D. (2010). Explaining crime: Primer in criminological theory. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Bursik, Jr., R. (2009). Ecological Stability and the Dynamics of Delinquency. Crime And Justice, 8, 35 Hugh D. Barlow and Scott H. Decker (Eds.) (2010). Criminology and public policy: Putting theory to work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.  Shelly, J. (2011). Dynamics and Treatment Needs of Adolescence. Crime & Delinquency, 2(2), 106-115. Read More