Is General Deterrence Likely to Reduce Crime - Essay Example

Is general deterrence likely to reduce crime? Is general deterrence likely to reduce crime? General deterrence as a mechanism to reduce crime is grounded on the basic premise of intimidating and threatening people to refrain them from committing crime. It is thought that by imposing punishment through a clearly written law, people will be deterred from committing crimes and their acts will be shaped according to a desired behavior that will produce an efficient society. Its efficacy as deterrence to crime, however, has been debated for its conception since the 1700s by moral philosophers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Imposing punishment as deterrence to crime is a criminal justice philosophy that was first conceptualized by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham who provided the philosophical foundation of the deterrence and rational choice theory. Cesare Beccaria formulated the theory out of his disgust of the primitive justice system of his time that he considered as whimsical and excessive. He thought of an alternative justice system that is rational, just and efficient, thus is his general deterrence theory (Paternoster, 2010). Today’s prevailing thought about how crime can be curbed or curtailed can be said to be consistent of the general deterrence theory. It is the idea that criminal acts can be prevented out of fear of sanction and, thus, would-be offenders would be deterred to commit crime. In this theory, law enforcement or policing is necessary to have the perception among would be offenders, a risk or certainty of apprehension that would eventually lead to meting out a punishment. The general deterrence theory is hinged on the premise that a man acts out of self-interest or as Beccaria would put it “the despotic spirit which is present in every man” (Beccaria, 1764, p. 94). Beccaria proposed that for deterrence to be effective, the punishment that will be meted has to be proportional according to the crime; the severest punishment to be meted to those who commit the most heinous of crimes and the minor crimes should be meted with the least painful punishment (Beccaria, 1764). To this, Bentham added that human behavior is always directed towards the attainment of pleasure and avoidance of pain (1789). Thus, being a rational being, the man will elect a course of action based on what will benefit him the most. Following this line of argument, if the pain of punishment far outweighs the benefit or pleasure of breaking a law, and that apprehension and punishment is certain, the man being a rationale being will avoid crime and deterrence takes effect. This theory, however, was questioned and doubted by several scholars on the field of criminal justice. Among them is Von Hentig, a former editor of the journal who dismissed the validity of general deterrence in reducing crime. According to Von Hentig, general deterrence will not work because the threat of punishment is not immediate and distant to the would-be offender. The danger presented by the punishment to the offender is perceived as remote and, thus, can be readily offset by the immediate advantage of committing to the crime (1938). Von Hentig also critiqued the philosophical foundation of general deterrence that there are individuals who are immune from the threats of legal punishment. He cited those who are motivated by “maternal instincts, the young and women who tend to be impetuous, those motivated by ideology, the “have-nots,” and the feeble-minded” (Paternoster, 2011, p. 773). Von Hentig also dismissed the theory that men are basically motivated by pleasure and discouraged by pain as being naïve considering the complicity of life (1938). Andenaes shared Von Hentig’s skepticism and doubted general deterrence’s efficacy in reducing crime. For Andenaes, the use of state sanctioned threat of punishment to deter crime is not a sound empirical basis for the validity of the proposition of general deterrence (Paternoster, 2011). These points of view of Andenaes and Von Hentig are shared by many scholars in the field of criminal justice that for a time the theory was ignored. This skepticism about the efficacy of general deterrence is still present today evident with the recent study made by Bargaric et al. on the efficacy of general deterrence in preventing individuals in committing tax fraud. Whereby they dismissed “general deterrence [because it] is undermined by empirical realities. The weight of research data in relation to the efficacy of harsh sanctions to deter crime, suggests a very weak correlation at best and, on balance, no correlation at all” (Bagaric, 2011, p. 539). The theory of general deterrence nearly died out because of the lack of empirical evidence to support the theory whereby many scholars consequently ignored the theory as an untenable concept to deter, curtail or curb crime. It only resurged strongly back in the 1990s where it became the driving principle behind the Clinton’s administration effort to reduce crime. President Bill Clinton signing into law Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act gave credence to the general deterrence theory because it provided the empirical basis that the theory works. And, perhaps, this could be the basis that many scholars and sociologists are looking for that would support the general deterrence theory as a tenable and effective concept to reduce crime. There are two empirical experiences that this paper would like to present arguing that indeed general deterrence theory is an effective mechanism to reduce crime. The first experience is the first mentioned law enacted by the Clinton administration which is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that seeks to toughen the deterrent effect of the law that includes tough sentencing laws, rigid firearm control and deployment of 100,000 new police officers on the street (Library of Congress, n.d.). To add teeth to the initiative, federal funding for the new law was also provided. Second, is the Broken Window approach of Mayor Rudy Guilliani where he showed no tolerance even for the slightest misdemeanor among the criminals of New York. The results of both experiences are dramatic in terms of effectively reducing crime. In the case of President Clinton’s Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, it has to be understood that crime rate across America dramatically and steadily dropped after the implementation of the law. In a study conducted from 1962 to 2008, it showed that the rate of property and violent index crime in the US declined. Prior to the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in the 1970s and 80s, the decline in crime index was almost insignificant. After the implementation of the law, however, the reduction rate of both property and violent crime was dramatic and consistent that lasted until year 2000 which has been dubbed as the “great crime drop” (Blumstein and Wallman, 2000). This consistent drop continued up to 2008 though not as dramatic during Clinton’s term. This drop in crime rate occurred in all regions of United States that includes the urban and rural areas in all index crime categories. This finding is supported by several researches beginning with the study of Robert J. Sampson and Jacqueline Cohen who established that there is a direct relationship between police aggressiveness in law enforcement and increase in arrest leading to the perception of the certainty of punishment (Paternoster, 2011). Thomas B. Marvell, Carlisle E. Moody and Steven D. Levitt corroborated this study that there is an “inverse relationship between the number of police officers and state-level homicide, robbery, and burglary rates” (p. 790). It only means that the mere presence of a police officer can already deter a crime which is consistent with the general deterrence theory of imposing threat of punishment to deter crime. The experience in the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act can be considered as a direct empirical evidence of the efficacy of the general deterrence theory in reducing crime. This removes the possibility of coincidence or statistical fluke because the drop in crime rate occurred after the implementation of the law at a rate that is dramatic and consistent, not to mention that several studies conducted had the same conclusion that general deterrence was a factor to it. Mayor Guilliani’s broken window approach to the excessive criminality in New York can also be likened to Clinton’s Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Prior to Mayor Guilliani’s tough approach towards criminality, New York was considered to be the most crime infested city in the whole America that residents became desperate to solve their peace and order problem. Rudy Guliani realized this need and ran as mayor under the slogan of effective policing and ending crimes to restore the quality of life in New York. This slogan won him the Mayoralty of New York in 1990 with a narrow margin over David Dinkins who was perceived to have poor control over the criminalities in New York. After winning the mayoralty race, Mayor Guilliani was known to have significantly reduced crime and cleaned New York of its rogue elements. He was famous for implementing his “Broken Window” approach that any disorder in the city, however small, should be dealt with firmly. Guiliani’s “broken window” posits that by being firm against small crimes, it sends a message that serious crime will surely not be tolerated also and such, reduction of crimes will follow (The Vancouver Province, 2008). This approach is very characteristic of general deterrence only that it was labeled under a different name. During Guiliani’s term as a mayor, the drop of crime rates in New York exceeded all national figures. Frank Zimring in his book The Great Crime Decline concluded that the drop in crime rate in New York was a result of serious policing of Guilliani’s administration (2006). Mayor Rudy’s Guiliani’s Broken Window is an epitome of general deterrence theory in its practical application of reducing crime. It showed that with dogged persistence to implement it, this policy will not only work but will also win people’s support evident with Mayor Guilliani’s legendary popularity among the citizens of New York. He was even able to successfully pass the leadership of New York to Michael Bloomberg as a mayor who also runs under the same slogan of fighting crime Like Guiliani. Guilliani’s endorsed Bloomberg by reminding New Yorkers about “the fear of going out at night and walking the streets,” and suggesting that if Bloomberg were to lose, “this city could very easily be taken back in a very different direction — it could very easily be taken back to the way it was with the wrong political leadership” (Rudin, 2009) suggests that general deterrence does not only prevent crime but will also win people’s support if they see that it is effective in restoring peace, order and harmony in a community. The experience in the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and “broken window” approach dispel the skepticism about the efficacy of general deterrence theory in reducing crime. Expert analysis showed that the phenomena of the dramatic drop in criminality in 1991 to 2000 across the whole of United States was due to effective policing and certainty of apprehension which was an aspect of general deterrence theory. The significant increase of police officers in the streets also increased the probability of apprehending anybody that would commit a crime to the point that it was already perceived by the public as such. This served as an effective deterrent among the public which resulted not only in the reduction but also in the dramatic drop of crimes in all indexes and across the country of United States including urban and rural communities. It is also important to note that general deterrence is a very effective regulatory mechanism among businesses which are considered as amoral entities that would readily break regulation if it benefits them. Almost generally, businesses comply and even exceed government requirements and regulations for fear of being sanctioned or fined (Thornton et al., 2005) which is again a function of general deterrence. Thus, the answer to the question “Is general deterrence likely to reduce crime?” would be affirmative considering the empirical evidences presented by the implementation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of President Bill Clinton and “broken glass” approach of Mayor Guilliani of New York. Both state policies dramatically reduced crime rate at a rate that is beyond doubt. The experiences among businesses also tell that general deterrence can be an effective tool for regulation in addition to reducing crimes. References Bagaric, M., Alexander, T, & Pathinayake, A. (2011). The Fallacy of General Deterrence and the Futility of Imprisoning Offenders for Tax Fraud. Australian Tax Forum, 26(3): 511-540. Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Henry Paolucci trans., Macmillan, (1986). Bentham, J. (1789). The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Prometheus Books (1988). Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (2000). The Crime Drop in America. Cambridge University Press. Library of Congress (n.d.). Bill Text 103rd Congress (1993-1994) Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3355.ENR Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3):765-823. Rudin, K. (2009, October 21). New York City Mayor: Bloomberg Overkill? Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/10/new_york_city_mayor_bloomberg.html. The Vancouver Province (2008, September 19). Giuliani pushes ‘broken windows’ policy. Crack down on petty crime and the rest will follow, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said yesterday. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=f67bb18b-f3ef-4b57-92d1-8cc45f2e3f42. Thornton, D., Gunningham, N. A., & Kagan, R. A. (2005). General Deterrence and Corporate Environmental Behavior. Law & Policy, 27(2):262-288. Von Hentig, H. (1938). The Limits of Deterrence, 29 J. AM. INST. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 555 (1938/Johs Andenaes, General Prevention—Illusion or Reality?, 43 J. CRIM. L ., CRIMINOLOGY & POLICE SCI. 176) Zimring, F. E. (2006, November 3). The Great American Crime Decline. Studies in Crime and Public Policy. Oxford University Press. Read More