Deterrence and Criminal Justice Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Deterrence and Criminal Justice. Answer: Introduction Deterrence is one of the central concepts in the subject of criminal justice globally. In simple words Deterrence means discouraging or condemning criminal activities by threatening the person committing the crime to be received serious ramifications. Deterrence is one of the long standing concepts which have acted as the mainstay for practicing criminal justice. Deterrence as a concept has been there in use from the ancient times when the roman kings used to punish people for wrongdoings against the state. In this way deterrence has becomes such a strong aspect for criminal justice across the world. Deterrence came into being with greater importance as in the earlier days of king most of the people feared being received with major punishment that prevented them from committing any kind of crime. Most of the opponents of the capital punishment have opposed strongly against deterrence stating that it doesnt have major impact on the person and hence it could be said that capital punish ment doesnt have any positive impact on crime. In the contemporary world it is stated that punishment is the not the best of ways to eliminate crime or prevent people to commit crime and hence show deterrence doesnt work anymore (Braga and Weisburd, 2012). In the present argumentative essay there are two different ideas of deterrence namely theory of punishment and impulsivity. The essay will discuss these two concepts which would help to compare and contrast deterrence and state why deterrence doesnt work anymore. Comparison between two different deterrence ideas Over the years the federal systems have largely dependent on punishment in order to focus on deterring the range of crime to a large extent. Over the years there are number of people in different countries who are incarcerated for crimes but the rate of crime doesnt seem to end. The sentencing systems have been largely used to focus on improving the offenders but it has been seen that deterrence cannot work in the contemporary world. While the criminal justice system as a whole makes a deterrent effect but it is important to understand that most of the criminal justice systems focus on applying the punishment but it could be said that opposing scholars state that punishment doesnt work anymore. In broad view punishment could be expected to affect deterrence in one or two ways (Willison and Warkentin, 2013). In Australia it could be seen that the crime rate has not reduced even after the application of punishment that is the maximum rate of punishment the rate of crime has not reduced . The standard counter agreement against punishment is that one could execute innocent person and hence it is important to assess that deterrence may not work. With punishment it cannot be said that criminal activities have reduced dramatically but with liberal criminal justice policies deterrence have been strongly denied. Capital punishment in different countries is different but in most of the situations it could be said that capital punishment doesnt affect the mindset of the criminals to a large extent. Rationality is one of the main concepts in the deterrence and it has to be understood that the two different concepts of deterrence namely theory of punishment and impulsivity (Jackson et al., 2012). The deterrence theory mainly states that people obey law because they are afraid of punishment and hence tend to obey law. The deterrence theory mainly states that people do not commit crime because they are afraid of law but because of being motivated to by moral sense. Hence in this case it could be said that a person is motivated and dissuaded from committing a crime if the punishment is swift, certain and severe. While deterrence is focused on preventing wrong doers from committing crimes on the other hand it is effective to set examples for the others to deter against crime. Basically deterrence is based on different ideas but the theory of punishment is one of the common ideas that work in deterrence (Kleck and Barnes, 2013). Punishment is one of the oldest methods that are used to deter offenders and other people. It has been stated by the researchers that the end of crime is punishment. As discussed deterrence is largely related to punishment as punishment is given in order to deter commoners from committing crimes but in the contemporary world it cannot be said that punishment doesnt really act effectively to prevent people from committing crimes and hence punishment is not supported by many research scholars. It is also stated that for behavior modifications punishment is not anymore a suitable option rather reward system have been supported by the scholars to a large extent (Nagin, 2013). Since the yester years crime has been seen as evil and was considered performed under a spell by evil spirit and hence he or she was punished and since people in the earlier years were afraid of punishments and so they did not commit crimes initially. As per the statistics the crime rate in Australia did not get red uced even after strong and maximum punishment given by the court of Law. As per the information way back in the 1967 the murder rate in Australia was around 150 increasing over a period of time by 200 where there were 96 executions done but there were no changes in the murder rates over the years which clearly shows that punishment doesnt make a huge difference in the minds of the criminal (Cronin-Furman, 2013). Impulsivity is another idea on which deterrence works especially when its stated that deterrence is largely based on rationality. It is important to note that in crime it is stated that most of the people have that decision making ability which drives them to either commit a crime or not committing it. Impulsivity is an extremely important aspect in the study of deterrence and hence it is important that this aspect is studied properly. The general theory of crime clearly states that committing a crime basically depends on the self control and the ability to make decisions and this is where most of the potential criminals might deter from committing crimes but on the other hand it could be said that most of the criminals with long criminal background are not moved by impulses as hence commit crimes (Saridakis and Spengler, 2012). It is considered that they are not impulsive and since make their decisions extremely effectively and hence doesnt become impulsive. Describing criminality i n terms of self control is very tough and hence impulsivity cannot focus on deterrence as with longer criminal record. For instance when a person is doing robbery for money there mightnt be impulse working on it. On the other hand if a person is doing burglary for a specific reason impulse will definitely come into play which might stop him or her before committing the crime (Wellman, 2013). Impulsiveness means a different world view. It cannot be denied that people are born with positive and negative impulses and hence it is important to control the negative impulse effectively. Interdisciplinary study of impulsivity has related this aspect with antisocial conduct. Impulsivity is also a part of the working of psychopathic personality and has been associated with insane criminal mindset. Impulsivity from the point of view of psychology has been defined as the characteristics showed by a man who are largely denied social status or are considered inferior which then drive them to comm it a crime and hence mere punishments wouldnt rehabilitate their mindsets from committing another crime (Crockett, zdemir and Fehr, 2014). Comparing both the ideas taken up in this case it could be said that both the ideas are different from each other when one shows the applicability of punishment to rehabilitate a person on the other hand impulsivity shows the impulses that drive a person to commit a crime. It is important to assess both the perspectives effective to understand why deterrence doesnt work anymore. In the recent past there have been number of debates over the applicability of maximum sentence in rehabilitating a person or eliminating his thoughts about crime. On the other hand impulse is considered largely a reason for which a person commits crime (Garoupa and Rizzolli, 2012). People with impulsivity have been seen to have excessive propensity to commit crime and hence it is important for the criminal justice to have something better rather stronger to rehabilitate such actions or thoughts. Impulsivity is perhaps the most common trait associated with individual difference on offending. It is important t o note that most of the criminals committing a crime are focused on ultimately getting the benefits and hence doesnt consider the consequence and people who weigh up both these aspects make prudent decisions and this is where impulsivity comes into play (Friesen, 2012). A person who is considering a revenge on another person will definitely think about the possible ramifications he or she is likely to face after committing the crime. Hence these people cannot be influenced by the kind of sentence they get as may be he or she will do only one murder or may be when the person comes out of the jail will consider a career in crime which then he or she will do for money. There is a huge difference between deterrence by punishment with impulsivity. Maximum punishment of life incarceration or death sentence will not affect the mindset of the other criminals as now there are various ways of eluding criminal charges and hence impulsive criminals focus on committing crimes with a full proof p lan which would help him or her to elude charges (Kunst and Van Wilsem, 2013). In recent research it has been stated that impulsive felons focus on understanding the consequences and benefits and they often feel the consequences are deferred or uncertain which then helps them to commit a crime without any possible fear and it is tough to manage such criminals. The question that arises here is whether it is possible to deter these kinds of people from committing crimes further. The answer is considered a conundrum as it has been seen that even strictest punishments have not been able to reduce murders and molestations and hence it can clearly be stated that punishment is not anymore the best way to deter people from committing crimes. Impulsivity has come into the picture the importance of punishment has reduced to a large extent as people are not anymore afraid of punishments even death sentence. Even though it cannot be denied that long term jail do prevent crime but up to a point (Higgins et al., 2013). Logically analysing the impulsivity perspective of crime it could be said that it is very tough to manage impulsive criminals as they do not believe in humanity and are extremely selfish and want to achieve their own interest pretty easily. Hence some of the major questions which have been asked by the researchers that whether there is a clear impact of punishment on impulsive offenders the answer will clearly be no because it really doesnt make a huge difference on them and hence impulsivity will have to be dealt in different way (Carli et al., 2014). Punishing the offenders is basically the duty of all the states in Australia in fact in all the countries but it could be said that with time passing by there are number of ways people now can avoid punishment and even after punishment they are driven to commit crimes either for money or for taking revenge. A common point that could be used in this case to understand deterrence and punishment, is wearing helmet and getting fined for no t doing it. There are number of people all across the world who regularly ride motorcycles and dont wear helmets even after knowing if they get caught they could be fined or jailed for doing it repeatedly but still there are hardly people who follow rules which clearly shows that mere punishment is not anymore effective in deterring people from committing crimes especially impulsive criminals. There is another problem with punishment as often it is seen that the court or the justice system sometime accuse the innocent and acquit the guilty and naturally this makes the person an impulsive criminal who then sets in motion a series of events that completely changes the perspective of the innocent about the justice system and the society (Healey and Beauregard, 2017). Even though both the perspectives are definitely different but establish good viewpoints about making decisions regarding deterrence how it is influenced by punishment and impulsivity. Under any system especially in Australia men are taken care of in the best possible manner under punishment but then again the viewpoint of the society definitely doesnt change on him and he still is a criminal. The main difference among impulsive and non impulsive criminals is that impulsive criminals are more likely to focus on the benefits of the crime and non impulsive criminals will definitely weigh up the decisions effectively before committing a crime. The criminological research of impulsivity has focused primarily on the certainty and timing of the reward and cost of the offending behavior. Apparently it could be said that deterrence is tough in the contemporary world with punishment as long term punishment or death sentence ends up the career of a person and hence doesnt let the world know about the possible learning of the criminal and hence it doesnt end crime or criminals as courts become lenient but the planning of the crime becomes more interesting and smart that reduc es the chances of charges (Higgins et al., 2013). Deterrence is a complicated concept and there are number of aspects which come into play in this case. It is important to note that not always people will focus to make proper decisions before they commit crimes and feebleminded people will commit crime whimsically and then think about the consequences and hence mere punishment will not be able to restrain people from committing mistakes like this and hence this is where it becomes clear that why deterrence doesnt work anymore in the contemporary world and there should be specific strategies which should be developed to manage crimes and reduce crimes with swift, certain and severe decisions that will not let any further crime to happen (Nagin, 2013). Conclusion To conclude the essay it could be said that deterrence is difficult in the contemporary world as most of the criminals are focused on committing the crime and weighing up the benefits and consequences but at times they are very impulsive and hence impulsive people cannot be controlled through punishment. The two different perspectives of crime states that wither harsh punishments a story of a criminal is paused but it cannot completely make changes in the criminal environment as well as in the mindset of the criminals because impulsivity is largely related to criminality and hence it could be said that most of the criminals are impulsive and focused on doing the crime for maximum benefits and they dont think about punishment which ultimately doesnt lead to creation of awareness in the society and hence deterrence is not there. Overall to conclude it could be said that deterrence doesnt work anymore due to the increase in impulsive offenders and with the decrease in the impact of puni shments. References Braga, A.A. and Weisburd, D.L., 2012. The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,49(3), pp.323-358. Carli, V., Mandelli, L., Zaninotto, L., Alberti, S., Roy, A., Serretti, A. and Sarchiapone, M., 2014. Trait-aggressiveness and impulsivity: role of psychological resilience and childhood trauma in a sample of male prisoners.Nordic journal of psychiatry,68(1), pp.8-17. Crockett, M.J., zdemir, Y. and Fehr, E., 2014. The value of vengeance and the demand for deterrence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,143(6), p.2279. Cronin-Furman, K., 2013. Managing expectations: international criminal trials and the prospects for deterrence of mass atrocity.International Journal of Transitional Justice,7(3), pp.434-454. Friesen, L., 2012. Certainty of punishment versus severity of punishment: An experimental investigation.Southern Economic Journal,79(2), pp.399-421. Garoupa, N. and Rizzolli, M., 2012. Wrongful convictions do lower deterrence.Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE,168(2), pp.224-231. Healey, J. and Beauregard, E., 2017. Impulsivity as an etiological factor in sexual homicide.Journal of Criminal Justice,48, pp.30-36. Higgins, G.E., Kirchner, E.E., Ricketts, M.L. and Marcum, C.D., 2013. Impulsivity and offending from childhood to young adulthood in the United States: A developmental trajectory analysis.International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences,8(2), p.182. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P. and Tyler, T.R., 2012. Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions.British journal of criminology,52(6), pp.1051-1071. Kleck, G. and Barnes, J.C., 2013. Deterrence and Macro-Level Perceptions of Punishment Risks: Is There a Collective Wisdom?.Crime Delinquency,59(7), pp.1006-1035. Kunst, M. and Van Wilsem, J., 2013. Trait impulsivity and change in mental health problems after violent crime victimization: a prospective analysis of the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences database.Journal of interpersonal violence,28(8), pp.1642-1656. Nagin, D.S., 2013. Deterrence in the twenty-first century.Crime and Justice,42(1), pp.199-263. Saridakis, G. and Spengler, H., 2012. Crime, deterrence and unemployment in Greece: A panel data approach.The Social Science Journal,49(2), pp.167-174. Wellman, C.H., 2012. The rights forfeiture theory of punishment.Ethics,122(2), pp.371-393. Willison, R. and Warkentin, M., 2013. Beyond deterrence: An expanded view of employee computer abuse.MIS quarterly,37(1).