Deterrence (legal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article refers to deterrent theories of punishment. For other uses, see Deterrence (disambiguation).

See also: deterrence (psychological)

Criminology and Penology

Theories
Anomie
Differential Association Theory
Deviance
Labeling Theory
Rational Choice Theory
Social Control Theory
Social Disorganization Theory
Social Learning Theory
Strain Theory
Subcultural Theory
Symbolic Interactionism · Victimology
Types of crimes
Blue-collar crime · Corporate crime
Juvenile crime
Organized crime
Political crime · Public order crime
Public order case law in the U.S.
State crime · State-corporate crime
White-collar crime · Victimless crime
Plaid-collar crime
Penology
Deterrence · Prison
Prison reform · Prisoner abuse
Prisoners' rights · Rehabilitation
Recidivism · Retribution
Utilitarianism
Criminal justice portal
See also: Wikibooks:Social Deviance
This box: view • talk • edit

Deterrence is often contrasted with retributivism, which holds that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime and should be calculated based on the gravity of the wrong done.

Deterrence can be divided into three separate categories.

Specific deterrence focuses on the individual in question. The aim of these punishments is to discourage the criminal from future criminal acts by instilling an understanding of the consequences.

General or indirect deterrence focuses on general prevention of crime by making examples of specific deviants. The individual actor is not the focus of the attempt at behavioral change, but rather receives punishment in public view in order to deter other individuals from deviance in the future. The argument that deterrence, rather than retribution, is the main justification for punishment is a hallmark of the Rational choice theory (criminology) and can be traced to Beccaria and Bentham.

Incapacitation is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence. Incapacitation aims to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are put in jail not so that they will learn the consequence of their actions but rather so that while there they will be unable to engage in crime.

[edit] Criticism

It has been argued that deterrence is ineffective at achieving its ultimate goal. Critics of specific deterrence argue that offenders do not pause to consider the possible punishment for a crime they are about to commit, especially in the heat of the moment, and when drugs or alcohol are involved. Some suggest that potential offenders are more likely to be deterred by the threat of being caught rather than the threat of punishment, citing an example of the crime rate falling dramatically in areas where closed-circuit television surveillance systems were introduced. General deterrence has also been heavily criticised for relying on publicity of heavy punishments; it has been described as "the least effective and least fair principle of sentencing".^[1]