Posted at 12.28.2018
Does consequence really deter criminal offenses? You can say no because the rate of crime is stable rather than declining. "The connection between offense and punishment is certainly a complex one. In simple terms, one might predict that, if criminal offense rates increase, there should be a related increase on jail populaceOn the other hands, if abuse levels increase, criminal offenses control theory suggests that deterrence and incapacitation should show themselves in a matching reduction in criminal offenses rates" (Blumstein, 1998). Over the past few decades, criminal offense rates have fluctuated, but have been pretty stable numbers. We've not seen the decrease in criminal offenses that you might expect to with the growth in prison or jail inmates.
What type of punishment deters criminal offense most effectively? Retribution is the oldest form of punishment. Retribution is "an act of moral vengeance where world makes the offender suffer from approximately the suffering brought on by the criminal offense" (Macionis, 2006). With retribution, we expect that culture is morally well balanced. When a crime is devoted, it upsets that balance. Retribution is considered to restore the total amount by granting a punishment that works with the criminal offense; for example, "and eye for an eye".
Another thought is the fact that if the consequence is severe enough, it would discourage anyone from committing the crime. This justification is recognized as deterrence. Deterrence is "the attempt to discourage criminality by using consequence" (Macionis, 2006). Deterrence came into being through the eighteenth century and was a renewed form of abuse from retribution. Retribution experienced become harsh abuse, such as mutilation and fatality. People commenced to believe that criminals could be punished effectively and accordingly through lesser abuse.
Along the lines of convinced that an individual can be punished effectively through reduced punishment came up the function of rehabilitation. Treatment; however, didn't come around until the 19th century. Treatment is "a program for reforming the offender to avoid later offenses" (Macionis, 2006). World came to think that unlawful deviance was learned and could be considered a result of one's upbringing, financial status, or even the lack of positive role models. The idea was that if one got learned these bad qualities earlier in life, they could also be taught good features if given the opportunity. In other words, they could be reformed or rehabilitated. Treatment takes work on the part of the offender; however, it generally does not include suffering such as that involved with retribution and deterrence. Rehabilitation is also custom-made to the fit the needs of the deviant.
The final justification for punishment is societal safety. Societal protection means "making an offender not capable of further offenses temporarily through imprisonment or once and for all by execution" (Macionis, 2006). Like deterrence, the primary focus of societal protection is protecting culture. The intent is to provide a punishment that leaves the deviant incapable of committing the crime again. Currently, there are 2 million people imprisoned in the United States. This people has tripled since 1990 and carries on to rise. America imprisons more of its population than any other country (Macionis, 2006).
Everyone agrees that consequence deters offense, but which form of consequence is the very best? Unfortunately, deterring offense through abuse is difficult to evaluate. It really is difficult to say what form of abuse my work best for every offense and every felony.
Generally speaking, you might think that the death charges would be an outstanding deterrent to criminal offenses; however, that is not exactly the circumstance. It is doubtful whether the loss of life penalty actually deters others from committing the criminal offense. Additionally, there have been individuals put to death who have been later found innocent of committing the accused offense. Because the threat of consequence as a deterrent for crime is definitely debated, many have attemptedto measure the efficiency. In most models, the optimal amount of deterrence will not mean eradicating the crime all together. Instead, the perfect amount of deterrence comes from balancing the expenses, the power to world, and the deterrence to the deviant.
Every justification is questionable and debatable. In person, I am not a proponent of the fatality penalty; however, I believe the evidence may show that it is an effective deterrent to offense. My problems with capital consequence are moral. I really do not believe that it is morally right to take the life of another individual, even if indeed they have taken the life span of another. I am also worried about the fact that an innocent person may be put mistakenly put to death.
Although I have moral issues with the death charges, this does not mean that it isn't a powerful deterrent to crime. Nothing says do not take action like worries of fatality for carrying it out. Quite simply, I really do not think you can find an improved way of getting the attention of the unlawful than by letting them know that they can be placed to death if they commit certain criminal acts. Corresponding to an article in USA Today, "In New York, the death charges has turned the dining tables on dread and put it back where it belongs-in the hearts of criminals. In a matter of twelve months, the death penalty helped produce a remarkable drop in violent offense. Just as important, it has restored New Yorkers' assurance in the justice system because they know their federal genuinely is focused on their safe practices. " (Pataki, 1997)
So although I may well not be considered a proponent of the death penalty, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Capital punishment is a form of deterrence and it can seem to be always a deterrent to crime. The benefits to society outweigh that that of retribution, rehabilitation, and societal coverage. Personally, i support rehabilitation, but I believe it's very expensive and will not always work. When looking for the perfect justification for abuse, I slim more towards deterrence while looking for that balance between cost, profit to world and deterring the deviant.
Deterrence appears to be the best overall solution for avoiding criminal offenses. "Ultimately, our desire to alleviate crime is merely as rough as the laws we enforce to punish deviants. By enforcing the loss of life penalty as the law of the land, we illustrate our conviction and strengthened the theory our children and future generations can expand up in a country that is free of violence" (Pataki, 1997).