Specific Deterrence Essay

While many opponents argue the economics of the issue, they fail to acknowledge that the main goals of punishment are to correct behavior that is deviant from the law and to prevent similar incidences from occurring. Without capital punishment, the culprits would not have to confront the potential of death, meaning that the marginal cost of violent crime would be diminished. Therefore, capital punishment is an effective method to deter

When a judge is considering sentencing to convict an offender specific deterrence should be more valuable than general deterrence but both are needed in the sentencing process. For the offender not to reoffend specific deterrence need to be embedded to determine the certainty of the crime. So the offender will not commit the same crime twice. Overall doing the sentencing process the judge have the right to use this offender specific deterrence to promote general deterrence to the public. This will allow other to fear the consequences and possibly punishment if they commit this specific crime.

Deterrence is future oriented to prevent crimes. Deterrence has two types general and specific. General is an individual punishment to dissuade others from committing crimes and specific is an individual being punished for additional

Very few criminals really get deterred by the death penalty. A Bristol prison chaplain says that, “...out of 167 condemned criminals whom he had interviewed, only three had not witnessed an execution” (Weil 2013). The criminals sentenced to death row were not deterred by the death penalty, even though almost all of them have witnessed a hanging. Capital punishment is not an effective way to deter criminals, since the prospect of spending one’s entire life behind bars sounds even worse. The criminals who think they can get away with their crimes, also think that they will not be executed if convicted.

A shift is happening in America. The pendulum is swinging from the ideals of get tough and mass incarceration. The swing has both positive and negative affects on the prison system. On the plus side, prison populations are decreasing. By shifting away from incarcerating any who break the law, there are fewer drug dealers and fewer violent offenders in the system.

Specific deterrence leans more towards punishing a criminal for his or her crimes in hopes that they will not commit another crime in the near future. General deterrence is to prevent such crimes from occurring in the first place (National Police Committee). In addition, the public openly knowing that the state can institute and practice the death penalty “serves to deter others from committing capital crimes to avoid similar punishment” (National Police

The deterrence theory suggests that “the severity of criminal sanctions dissuades other potential offenders from committing crimes out of fear of punishment. ”4 That is applicable to the individuals that are punished and to people in the community. Nevertheless, prison’s effectiveness is often questioned as an effective deterrent to crime. Studies have shown that longer sentences have a small effect on whether offenders commit crimes or not, and the National Academy of Sciences determined that “insufficient evidence exists to justify predicating policy choices on the general assumption that harsher punishments yield measurable deterrent effects.

Because general deterrence uses one individual as an example for the rest of the population, an example that can be used is the three strike law. This law basically states that after a third serious or violent felony charge, one will

Recent studies concerning the death penalty reveal that “each execution carried out is correlated with approximately 74 fewer murders the following year,” (“Deter Crime”). Executing these criminals that are conducting capital crimes, would prevent them from being able to murder anyone again. In correlation to this, murders would decrease more and more each year the death penalty is active. Jeffrey Howard, a political philosophy lecturer, believes that “criminals should be punished so that they and others will be less likely to commit crime in the future.” Making sure that these murderers, twisted rapists, and others of the same category, know that committing severe crimes will have them put on death row might make them think twice before doing so.

Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.

However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).

A deterrent is essentially something that convinces people to not do something. In this case, the deterrent would be the threat of the death penalty. By this logic, it will convince people to not commit crimes because of the threat of the death penalty. The reason I bring this up is deterrents are not immoral. The death penalty is a deterrent and a form of retribution at its core, so in that sense, it cannot be considered immoral.

 (Siegle & Bartollas 2014 pgs 6 & 7) As I read this weeks assignment, more specifically, about general deterrence and specific deterrence and how the belief that "crime does not pay" applies to both of these. General deterrence is when a offender is punished so greatly that it sends a message throughout a community that committing that crime simply is not worth the punishment.  (Siegle & Bartollas 2014 pg 7) Specific deterrence "focuses on the fact that the individual offenders should learn first hand that crime does not pay when they experience harsh criminal penalties."  (Siegle & Bartollas 2014

There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.

If a potential offender realizes the fact that he will be sentenced to death, should he commit any hideous crime such as rape or premeditated murder, chances are that the instinct of survival that exists in every human will kick in; this combined with the fear of him being executed will deter him from actually committing such crime. One of the main concrete evidence to support this opinion was presented by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973. Using his innovative analysis, the results indicated that for every criminal executed, seven lives were saved because other to-be criminals were deterred from committing homicide. To make sure his results were undoubtedly correct, Ehrlich did follow-up studies, only to reconfirm his conclusions once more. Another objection raised by the opposition regarding this topic is that capital punishment will safeguard society.