Deterrence
Deterrence as a method of controlling crime works great
for those who have respect, fear, or an understanding of the consequences of
one’s actions and a desire to avoid the criminal justice system at all
cost. That would be me. I consider the risk before I act; I rarely act
or react because everyone else is doing it or I do not want to appear weak. I strive to do that because I have a fervent
desire to avoid incarceration of any kind.
Most law abiding citizens feel the same way. But the fact of the matter is that I am
financially stable, I own my own home, and can get just about anything I need
without having to ask for assistance from any person or organization. Therefore, deterrence for me is
self-inflicted. Unfortunately,
deterrence will not be as effective for people who see crime as the only
available means of obtaining the basics to sustain their primary needs or
either as the easy way to get what they want without regard to who may get hurt
or without fear of the consequences. We
could debate that these people are lazy, unmotivated, prey on the vulnerable, have
no self-respect or low self-esteem and you may be correct. We could blame poverty, racism, the economy,
tolerance or guilt of those who made it out and never looked back as the reason
why crime seems to be consistently occurring and we cannot build enough prisons
to contain the convicted. But the truth
of the matter is that statistics show that deterrence (punishment) may not be
enough to deter criminal behavior.
Utilitarian philosophers argue “punishment can be
justified only if the harm that it prevents is greater than the harm inflicted
on the offender through punishing him or her” (Banks, 2013, pg. 117). Then we have to analysis how the punishment
can prevent future criminal behavior. The desired goal of deterrence is to
ensure the punishment is so great the criminal “perceives or supposes the
magnitude of pain to be greater than the magnitude of the pleasure expected he
will absolutely be prevented from performing it” (Banks, 2013, pg.117). Having said all of this, there is still controversy
as to whether or not deterrence is morally correct when properly applied and
effective in preventing crime.
The victims of crime may argue that the deterrence
(incarceration, retribution, rehabilitation and retribution) is ethically and
morally correct. They want deterrence to
serve as the revenge or payback that they feel the offender deserves. But overcrowded prisons and jails indicate
that deterrence has had little effect on recidivism. The argument that
deterrence is futile; “it is unacceptable because it is impossible to achieve,
and if deterrent sentences are not successful, inflicting suffering in the name
of deterrence is morally wrong” (Banks, 2013, pg. 117).
Deterrence could be implemented in several ways; no
trespassing signs, erecting an electronic fence around a bank, minimum
sentences for specific crimes, etc.). If
an individual has no fear of the consequences or the consequences are not
severe enough to deter the offender, or when the need outweighs the known consequences,
they become ineffective. I guess the
“three strikes” rule of sentencing that requires longer terms of incarceration to
deter criminals from repeating the same crimes over again would not be
necessary if deterrence really worked. Even
capital punishment does not deter people from killing. If the death penalty was
punishment given to every murderer, they would not commit murder again and it
would serve as a great deterrent to anyone contemplating murder; but
extenuating circumstances (mental, emotional, self-defense, etc.), provides
justifiable discretionary exceptions to death penalty. As for me, the option of the death penalty as
a potential punishment for murder would make murder not an option for me.
References
Banks,
C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, INC.
