DB #1 Students Response
First Student
Lauren Snipes
Module 1 Theory to Policy
Top of Form
Deterrence theory is defined as known knowledge of a punishment for if an offender commits a crime which also means that the punishment will fit the crime (Cullen, 2017). Specific deterrence involves the punishments for specific crimes such as if a murder is committed then the punishment could be life in prison or the death penalty (Raphael, 2016). While general deterrence focuses on the entire public fearing the punishment because they witnessed someone else receiving the punishment (Cullen, 2017). General deterrence has the priority of deterring the public based off the consequences of others who have received a punishment for committing a crime (Cullen, 2017).
When relating deterrence theory to correctional policies, judges or parole officers do not have the liberties to determine the punishments for the crimes of the offenders (Cullen, 2017). An example of this would be two people who committed a robbery, while one individual may have stolen money to buy drugs, while the other robber stole money due to a mental disturbance such as Alzheimer’s (Cullen, 2017). Based off the deterrence theory, both offenders would receive the same punishment regardless of the reasons (Cullen, 2017). In addition, deterrence theory would not consider if the offender had or had not excelled through rehabilitation programs and does not believe in parole (Cullen, 2017). This shows the public and potential offenders that state authorities are serious about punishing those who commit crimes (Cullen, 2017).
Deterrence theory also promotes the idea that the crime is to be punished and not the offender (Cullen, 2017). This ensures that the focus of deterrence theory is prevent crimes and is a utilitarian theory (Cullen, 2017). The utilitarian theory of punishment is to focus on maximizing social order and happiness throughout society which means that there will be fewer crimes within the public (Lee, 2017).
Deterrence theory can be broken up into two different assumptions (Lee, 2017). The first assumption is that those who are potential offenders can make rational decisions and understand that there are consequences for breaking the law and they will be able to consider if they are willing to accept the consequences for committing a crime or not, this is called the capacity assumption (Lee, 2017). This assumption supports the idea that those who are rational will want to avoid punishments or unpleasant experiences (Lee, 2017). By being rational, the individual has the mental capability to be able to understand the consequences of committing a crime and comprehending that when he or she is caught, if found guilty, they would receive the punishment (Lee, 2017). This also means that if an individual is not rational or able to comprehend the punishment and does not understand that if he or she is found guilty of a crime then they will have to suffer the consequences of the crime (Lee, 2017). If the individual is not able to rationally understand this, the punishment will not be able to fully deter the crime (Lee, 2017).
The second assumption is that the punishments that are associated with committing crime is enough to convince potential offenders to not commit crimes, this is called the deterrence assumption (Lee, 2017). This assumption supports the idea that methods of punishment are commonly known as from originating on means of paying a price or a cost of something from an individual (Lee, 2017). This could involve paying personal money, taking personal time from their daily lives, or capital punishment which would result in execution (Lee, 2017). If the offender views the punishment as minor then the punishment may not be enough to deter potential offenders from committing crimes (Lee, 2017). This assumption focuses on why punishments are given to those who commit crimes, which focuses on making the punishment unpleasant enough that the offender will believe that the crime is not worth the punishment (Lee, 2017).
The long-term effects of deterrence theory have the purpose of reducing crimes, which will lead to fewer inmates, and this would lead to fewer prisons that suffer from overcrowding (Raphael, 2016). If the prisons are not overcrowded then they would be able to incorporate more programs for rehabilitation and classes for inmates who have been incarcerated for long periods of time, so they are up to date in technology, news, and understand how to survive in the world outside of the prison (Raphael, 2016).
In my opinion, deterrence theory will always be around because there will always be punishments for committing crimes to scare the public or deter the public from committing crimes (Cullen, 2017). However, judges and parole officers can determine how long or severe the punishment can be to an extent (Raphael, 2016). In addition, when taken into a court hearing, the jury could find the individual as not guilty and if the individual did commit the crime, then this means that the individual committed a crime and did not receive any form of punishment for the crime (Raphael, 2016). This could make potentials ignore the punishments that are for certain crimes because of the possibility that they would be found not guilty, or they would not have to serve a long imprisonment when compared to others who will receive a longer imprisonment for the same type of crime (Raphael, 2016). This also leads to the argument that not two crimes are the same because of the different factors of the crime (Raphael, 2016). This include but is not limited to the offender, the crime scene, if the offender is a repeat offender, the motive, and the type of crime (Raphael, 2016).
According to scripture it teaches that the prudent will understand that there is danger and consequences to committing crimes and they will seek safety and will not pursue the dangerous activities (New King James Bible, 1895, Proverbs 27:12). Proverbs 27:12 also teaches that those who continue the path towards the danger will have to pay a penalty (New King James Bible, 1895, Proverbs 27:12). This supports deterrence theory because this teaches that the punishment for the dangerous acts, such as crimes, will bring punishment but if the people turn away from crime or from the danger then they will not have to face the penalty (New King James Bible, 1895, Proverbs 27:12). The fear of a penalty or the desire of not suffering from a penalty may deter an individual from venturing off onto the wrong path (New King James Bible, 1895, Proverbs 27:12).
Bottom of Form