Definitions of Deterrence
Essay Preview: Definitions of Deterrence
Report this essay
Definitions of Deterrence
“deterrence can be thought of as the omission of an act as a response to the perceived risk and fear of punishment for contrary behaviour” (Gibbs, 1975:2)
“Any measure designed actively to impeded, discourage, or restrain the way in which another might think or act” (Cooper 1973:164)
“Principally a matter of the declaration of some harm, loss, or pain that will follow noncompliance; in short, the central concept is that of threat” (Zimring and Hawkins 1973: 7)
all these definitions talk about the future; how do we prevent future offences
Gibbs focuses on prediction of future behaviour of offender
Cooper focuses on lowering the crime rate
Zimring/Hawkins focus on the process by which crime rate is lowered, doing something to make them reconsider their criminal acts
Specific deterrence deterring someone from committing a crime again
General deterrence deterring society from committing crimes
Beccaria
The Enlightenment
There is an answer to every question, and that if you use the scientific method you can figure it out
Key word rationality
Human beings have minds that can be curbed to act civilized; not animalistic
Liberal thought; freedom from iron fist ruling mentality
Utilitarianism
“The greatest happiness shared by the greatest number” (Beccaria, as quoted in Grupp 1974:117)
Right and wrong right actions create happiness, wrong actions reduce happiness
But what happens to those who dont fall into the greatest number (ex. the homeless, young voters, minorities)
Middle ground
Deterrence how we weigh law and order with freedom
Social contract
Beccaria has similar views to Hobbes; that if people could get away with it they would just kill each other; people only care about themselves
Therefore it is a rational decision to join social contract, so state can protect us.
Contrast with last weeks idea of social contract, that we willingly become part of a collective conscience of shared morals (as if we like each other)
Rationality
Laws are the conditions that independent men set to form a society theyre there to keep society together, practical tool to govern society, not an oppressive tool
Social contract is necessary for people to buy into, otherwise their passions would run amuck
Vengeance was seen as some savage, irrational thing now
The right to punish
Whos job is it to punish? the sovereign/King or Queen/state
As opposed to letting people seek their own vengeance
State must enact right amount of punishment to maintain order
Cant be too much, because that would create tyranny which is just as evil as the crime
Too little punishment wont deter people from committing crime
Working with Utilitarianism
Only laws can state what the punishments are going to be
Must be clear and obvious, legal vs. illegal, not right vs. wrong
Punishments must also be written down and codified
Because if you leave punishment up to people themselves, they wont be rational.
Separation between legislation and judiciary
People who write the law cant also enforce the law
Can change it on a whim
Too much concentration of power tyrannical
Increases accountability by separating the power
Only as much punishment as necessary
That right amount of punishment to create a fair society
Too much punishment would make us all slaves and not happy citizens (Beccaria)
If youre not a happy citizen, you wont believe in the social contract or have a reason to obey the law anymore
Trying to balance public safety, with not giving too much power to higher-ups
No judicial discretion
Equality of punishment and sentencing, judges cant change things for certain people for certain circumstances
Judges cant add own spin or opinion on anything, or else theres bias
Beccaria believes that judges cant be trusted to be impartial of their own accord and so they must be forced to give up their discretion in sentencing
We have to believe that judge will do that and not bring own opinion, only way we will be okay with this system and buy into social contract
Basically, you dont want two people who commit the same crime to have different punishments
Accessibility
Laws should be available to everyone
Law cant be too vague, but also cant be too specific because then there will be too much of it
How much Punishment?
Punishment = Harm + Certainty + 1
How much harm was done by the crime must be done to the criminal
The +1 the punishment must be just enough to outweigh the