Deterrence Theory 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

Edward Koch make it clear that he believes that capital punishment can prevent homicides: “Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hands” (484). Koch tries to convince his reader that a strict punishment like the death penalty will definitely force people to think twice before they murder another human being. Koch uses evidence like the murder rate and cases where criminals committed multiple murders to support his defense for capital punishment, and uses the statistics to show how necessary capital punishment is necessary in the United States (485-86). This essay is directed at U.S. citizens how can be persuaded to support or have not yet formed an opinion on capital punishment, so the death penalty can gain supporters and be fully incorporated into the law. He also states that by making murderers pay with their lives, capital punishment makes the value of human life at a higher level (487).

Reiman begins his essay be explaining and describing the reasons in which he is against the common sense idea. The basis behind this theory is that common sense would tell someone that if something cost higher than something else, then fewer people will choose the item that cost more. Reiman offers three arguments in which he disagrees that the common sense idea will deter crime. The first one being that just because a person fears one penalty more than another, does not mean that this will deter the criminal behavior. It was stated that there is an equal likelihood of crime being deterred for the death penalty than there is for life behind bars.

I will go in depth on the concept and creation of the deterrence theory before applying it to Ted Bundy, one of the most prominent serial killers that America has ever seen. Due to Bundy’s supposed change of heart in his last few days, I will primarily be focusing on his final interview, performed by Dr. Dobson on January 23rd, 1989, one day before his execution.

In recent years, anti-death penalty propagandists have succeeded in stoking the fear that capital punishment is being carelessly meted out. Ironically, Of the 875 prisoners executed in the United States in modern times, not one has been retroactively proved innocent. The benefits of a legal system in which judges and juries have the option of sentencing the cruelest or coldest murderers to death far outweigh the potential risk of executing an innocent person. First and foremost, the death penalty makes it possible for justice to be done to those who commit the worst of all crimes. The execution of a murderer sends a powerful moral message: that the innocent life he took was so precious, and the crime he committed so horrific, that he forfeits

The death penalty as the book calls it, is a “socialization process” where individuals grow up learning the consequences and remain inherently good, rather than, having to weigh the pros and cons of a situation. Statistics show that there is no measurable correlation between murder and the death penalty. Statistics can always be skewed In that other factors

I think general deterrence is important because it can help prevent people from committing crimes or make people stop doing the crimes they've been committing. General deterrence can also help people get back on their feet and eventually lead a normal, healthy life despite their past. It's important because it not only stops crime or prevents it but it also can repair the life of the person who was caught up in

The death penalty on the other hand would have been effective if the overall public minded to consider it a system for ending criminal acts. While a monstrous number would ensure the nonattendance of the death penalty in their real system, the wrongdoing rate continues going higher for countries that still practice the death penalty. Regardless, there is lacking accurate data to exhibit that death penalty has been convincing similarly as maintaining a strategic distance from criminal acts. It infers

Tony Farrar published an exploratory study applying the effects of deterrence theory in being watch towards law enforcement demonstrating the effects of body-cameras on officer’s behaviors. Farrar makes the point that, “most forms of species alter their behaviors once made aware that they are being observed” (Farrar 2013). With that in mind the study determined that those officers that wore body-cameras experienced twice as many use of force incidents (Farrar pg. 8). The author expresses the relationship between the dependent variable of use of force complaints compared to the independent variable involving body-cameras proved with a 95% confidence variable that body-cameras altered the behaviors of police officers dramatically.

The topic of capital punishment presents a test of values. The arguments in support of and opposition to the death penalty are complex. In the end, this is a question of an individual’s values and morals. The topic requires careful thought to reach a reasoned position. Both sides of the argument are defensible.

When a person is punished quickly after committing a crime the swiftness makes them associate their penalty with the harmful behavior. When too much time is spent between the crime and the punishment, “the potential for the association to form in one’s mind is lost and ultimately the punishment—regardless of how certain or severe it is—risks losing its bite” (Pratt 4). This means that celerity is essential to having the criminal ruminate on their past action. An example of how the thinking process works with celerity can be depicted in the Milgram experiment. In this experiment, there was a “teacher” and a “learner”.

Specific deterrence discourages individuals from committing crimes because they have learned through personal experience (i.e., by being punished) that the cost for their criminal behaviors is too high (Akers & Sellers, 2009). General deterrence, on the other hand, discourages individuals from committing crimes because they have learned through observation (i.e., by observing the suffering of offenders who have been punished) that the cost of committing crime is too high. By using fear, the behaviors of would-be criminals can be modified. Labeling Theory The labeling theory indicates that once individuals are

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.

General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some. General deterrence focuses on preventing the crime before it happens. The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me. You would think that could deter criminals from committing that crime.

In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.