Deterrence is the idea that executing the murderers will decrease the rates of homicide by discouraging future murderers. It may make them fear that they themselves will suffer the penalty of death if they commit a murder. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that in doing so harm will come to him. This is what is referred to as "general deterrence". Another type of deterrence to look at is known as "specific
I have concluded that substance abuse is a huge contributor to crimes being committed. The lack or decrease in moral intuition and character can cause a person to make bad decisions. This would cause people not to understand the benefits of to abiding to common social values. A person demographics can also play a role in determining whether or not an individual will turn to a life of crime. Government officials, politicians, and courts employees have concluded that individuals commit crimes for private alternatives and they should be punished and held responsible for their actions and conduct.
It assumes that individuals are fearful of punishment. As a result, attaching punishment(s) to crimes is the surest way of preventing crime. The Theory also concludes that the punishment must be proportional to the crime, a concept commonly called marginal deterrence. More serious offenses, such as rape,
The criminal justice system ensures that everyone that commits a crime is punished as a result of the crime they commit. The prison system (incapacitation) was initially developed to keep offenders off the streets thus preventing them from committing crimes in the community resulting in the reduction of crime rates. Capital punishment is also part of the prison system were it is carried out but, in society not everyone feels that criminals should receive the death penalty for a murder they committed. People also believe that capital punishment does not in any way deter future murders committed by other criminals. According to the article “The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder,” Hentoff says, “statistics [show] that the murder rate in states with the death penalty is higher than the murder rate in states without capital punishment.” (2004) On the other hand in the article “The Death Penalty Deters Murder,” the author says, “by removing a
There has to be a consequence for breaking laws and committing crimes for anyone. However, there is also a big difference between a non-violent crime and a violent crime. Someone who is arrested for drug possession verses someone arrested for murder is like night and day so should they be punished alike for such different crimes? I think the whole drug epidemic needs to be overhauled and corrected. Rather than put these people in jail where they just sit till they get out why not have a different type of jail where they are housed and rehabilitated with appropriate treatment and awareness?
The punishment is to protect the community from the offender by keeping them off the street, and trying to reconcile if this person wants to change for the better, in essence to also promote the rehabilitation option to the offender which could help denounce the conduct of the offender, but ultimately for the offender to recognize the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community. The offender needs to understand the damage that has been done by their crime, and understand their actions affect everyone around them. The punishment applies to the offender per the crime committed. If the offender committed a federal crime then they go to a federal prison, if the offender is only sentenced to a year of time they will go to a jail, and for almost every other crime they would go to a state prison. The prison whether it be state or federal its main objectives in preventing and controlling criminal behavior and acts.
Criminal Acts and Choice Theories Response The basis of the “choice theory” is to show why and/or what causes a criminal to make the choice to commit a crime. Every person has to make their own choices and decisions and criminals make irrational decisions when, where, and how to commit a crime. All the while giving no thought to the punishments for their actions because the personal gain is of greater value to them. Criminals do not believe the laws apply to them. The criminal commit crimes for personal gain, money, power, and status.
Like the item says, 'functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society.' Durkheim blames people not being fully integrated into society’s norms and values as to why they commit crime. So he said once people have served their time for their crime, they should be reintegrated. It’s a strength that Durkheim suggests them being reintegrated as it means they’re less likely to reoffend if they feel they belong to their society and do not look for status through crime. However, interactionists would say that agents of social control cause crime, not the society you are in.
As a rational criminal, if I were to decide to shoplift, and knowing that the decision to commit a specific crime is a matter of personal choice, I would feel like I would let a lot of my family members down by making this choice to commit a crime. I feel like the thought of having to face friends and family would be worst then receiving punishment from the legal system. The concept of general deterrence would also make it hard for me to know that with crime the punishment could be severe and to have to live without my children for any period of time would way on my concisions’. Understanding the choice theory states that: all we do is behave, that almost all behavior is chosen, and that we are driven by our genes to satisfy five basic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun
The key difference between these two models is that the crime control model is much more harsh and unrelenting; it emphasizes controlling crime via punishing suspects while the due process model emphasizes careful examination to ensure less innocent people are unjustly convicted. The crime control model places an emphasis on "placing as few restrictions as possible on the ability of law enforcement officers to make discretionary decisions in apprehending criminals"(Gaines). Under this model, courts would be more willing to convict offenders, even with an absence of compelling evidence. For example, a court would be more willing to accept a police officer's account of a homicide without careful cross-examination under the crime control model in order to repress crime. In contrast, the due process model emphasizes "protecting the rights of the accused through formal, legal restraints on the police, courts, and corrections" (Gaines).