Theories Evaluations

Deterrence Theories

Logical consistency: Deterrence theory makes logical sense, as it can be assumed that increasing the certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment should decrease crime. Deterrence Theory consists of three main concepts: certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment. Certainty is how probable it is that an individual will get caught and punished for committing a crime. Severity is how severe the punishment will be for committing a specific crime. Celerity is the swiftness of punishment once the crime is committed. The proposition assumes that those three concepts increase when related to punishment/risk, crime should decrease as an effect, as individuals begin to abstain from engaging in criminal behavior. Deterrence theory has good logical consistency because of its clearly stated and internally consistent concepts. Jeremy Bentham and Beccaria did not focus on punishment being as hard as possible or something reminiscent of Hammurabi’s code. Instead they proposed that punishment needs to be just sever enough that it outweighed the gain of committing a crime without being too severe that I became unjust (Akers, 2012). Logical consistency is appropriate because it recognizes the threat and risk of punishment that all crimes possess, which deter crime when administered certainly, severely, and swiftly. **Note: Note the concepts and propositions here. What makes this logical or not logical? Find support from your book.

Scope: Deterrence theory has a wide scope as the idea can be applied to most crimes. When Akers (2012) talks about specific and general deterrence, both are talked about in a broad sense that covers multitudes of crime. The book talks about deterrence in relation to domestic abuse and delinquency, but the concepts mentioned above can be applied to other crimes. These crimes may entail robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc. If individuals are aware of these consequences, then they are more likely to refrain from committing these crimes. Explain more here. The idea of general deterrence is based on the idea that offenders and the punishment they receive for their crimes will instill fear in the public to the point it will deter the public from committing crime (Akers,2012). Discuss specific deterrence and general deterrence here. Discuss informal and formal sanctions here. **Note: Make sure to explain all elements in this section. Explain in detail what crimes that this can cover and why.

Parsimony: Deterrence Theory is parsimonious at first glance because its concepts are concise, clear, and easy to understand. The concepts: certainty, severity, and celerity are clearly defined making the theory’s main thesis easy to comprehend, leaving very little room for any confusion. However, it is important to note that the concept of celerity, how fast punishment takes place after the crime is committed, varies from theorist to theorist or even individual to individual. It is also to note that there are other elements such as informal sanctions, formal sanctions, specific deterrence, general deterrence, and how these are used to explain this theory. Theory may not be as parsimonious in depth as it is on its surface. Thus, the theory shows that it is not very simple but not complex - it is more so simple but with multiple notable components.

**Note: What are the other elements that may make this less parsimonious, if any?

Testability: Deterrence Theory has proven to be difficult to test. Deterrence theory fails to test one of the three concepts, making the overall theory difficult to find the test. As noted in the section above, the celerity of punishment is widely debated, some believing punishment begins at arrest while others believe it starts at conviction. The inability to agree on a set start time of punishment has led to the concept becoming virtually untestable. Paternoster states that “support for deterrence theory is a misinterpretation of the findings of negative correlations between the perceptions of sanctions and the deterrence of offenses” (Paternoster, 1983). The theory is also difficult to test because individuals are not fully aware of the certainty, severity, and celerity of crime. Individuals may usually act out of impulse, survival, greed, or other aspects while not understanding the consequences or possibly disregarding the consequences. **Note: Are concepts testable? Is it easy to test? Is it difficult to test? Have people tested this theory fully?

Empirical validity: Identify two studies that support your claim and one against your argument. What did the studies argue? How did the authors test this theory? What did the studies find? What did the authors say about the theory as a whole - difficult or relatively easy? Are there a lot of studies that test this theory? Why or why not?

Policy Implications: The policy implications of deterrence theory are the most common reaction to crime as is. Most when seeing increasing crime rates call for more severe and certain punishment to curb recidivism and discourage potential offenders. In fact, the idea of deterrence remains to be the basis of our modern criminal justice system (Akers, 2012). When the idea of deterrence is expanded to include informal sanctions as proposed by Paternoster, the policy implications include individuals being deterred from crime because of the informal sanctions put on them by family, friends, the community etc. Accounting for the informal sanctions, this theory’s policy implications would also include the possibility of severed personal relationships because of the formal sanctions. In fact, informal sanctions have more of an effect on deterring crime than the formal ones do (Akers, 2012). **Note: Are the policy implications reasonable? Can the policy implications be effective today? What does the book tell us? What policy implications can you think of from this theory?