Deterrence can be described as an act of dissuading people from taking part in criminal activity. This is achieved by attaching a respective punishment to a specific criminal behavior. The overall objective of deterrence is not only to punish an individual for their criminal behaviors but also to sway the general public against engaging in criminal behaviors. Deterrence is supposed to encourage people to think twice before they break any law. Therefore, deterrence is meant to ensure that punishments are so harsh that members of the public will fear committing a crime that will lead them to the same punishment. There are several types of deterrence, the key among them being specific deterrence and general deterrence.
Specific Deterrence
Specific deterrence is intended for a specific individual who has been charged with a particular crime. It operates under the pretext that a severe punishment meted out on an offender for his criminal behavior will dissuade him from committing the same crime in the future. For example, in the case of armed robbery, if the offender is sentenced to spend twenty years in jail, he will least likely to engage in armed robbery again after he leaves prison. However, past experiences have indicated that this is not a guarantee especially for first-time offenders (Miceli, 2019). Courts have instead established that the most effective form of specific deterrent is to deliver harsher punishments to individuals convicted of serious crimes for the third time onwards.
General Deterrence
General deterrence is meant for the general public and is intended to discourage them from engaging in the same criminal behavior that an individual has been charged with. Its objective is to teach the members of the public a lesson. The concept is that by punishing an offender harshly, people will be dissuaded from engaging in a similar criminal act. The death penalty is the best example in this category. For instance, if a murder suspect is sentenced to death for the same crime, the general public will be discouraged from committing the same crime as the death row convict.
Is the Concept of Deterrence Working?
Most criminals are more concerned with being caught during or after their commission of a crime than the punishment attached to the crime. Therefore, the chance of getting caught act as a more effective deterrent as compared to harsh punishments. Additionally, sending a criminal to go and send several years behind bars does not deter future crime. It has been established that most prisons indoctrinate and harden inmates with more effective strategies for committing a crime. Indeed, the more time they spend in prison, the more they get used to life in prison (Osborne, 2020). Hence, it does not deter convicts from committing crimes in the future for fear of getting back there.
Moreover, the idea of increasing the punishment severity to deter future crime does not work. This is because most criminals are not even aware of the laws and policies in place to address particular crimes. Instead, prisons maybe centers for exacerbating recidivism among prisoners. Additionally, no proof supports the notion that capital punishment as a form of general deterrence indeed deters crime. No study has been done to prove that death sentence increased or decreases homicide rates in the nation. Therefore, it cannot be concluded without an iota of doubt that the concepts of specific and general deterrence work. Instead of specific and general deterrence ideas, the most effective way to deter crime is to increase the perception of the public that they will be caught and subjected to punishment for their crimes.
References
Miceli, T. J. (2019). The paradox of punishment: Reflections on the economics of criminal justice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Osborne, P. H. (2020). The law of torts. Toronto, ON: Irwin Law.