Summary:
A review of the concepts of general deterrence and specific deterrence in criminial sentencing.
There are two different types if deterrence, the first is classified as specific deterrence. The goal of this category of deterrence is to lessen the probability of having a repeat offender. The three strikes law is an example of one of the methods that is used to assist this category of deterrence. The other category of deterrence is general deterrence. This category focuses more on future offenders. General deterrence attempts to positively influence would be offenders and stop the crimes before they happen. (Schmalleger, 2003, p. 406)
A stricter sentence for lesser crimes is an example of specific deterrence. The example used on pages 406 and 407 in Criminal Justice Today. Schmalleger writes, "Few traffic tickets would have to be written if minor driving offenses were punishable by death." As a free society there are obvious limitations on the use of capital punishment that the law must still protect. However capital punishment in itself is a deterrent. If the death penalty were the mandatory sentencing for any murder, the murder rates in our society would surely lessen.
Deterrence is a very effective method in achieving the goals of criminal sentencing. If society knows its punishment for a crime, this may be the entire deterrent necessary to prevent a crime from happening. However, if the crime is still committed then society must do what is required to deter the next possible criminal from performing the criminal act. This could be a vital step in the ongoing battle between the good guys and the bad guys.
The term retribution can be used in several senses. It can indicate vengeance or expiration, however, it is today more commonly associated with giving the offender his just deserts and using punishment as a censure or denunciation. The desire for vengeance theory is that the punishment satisfies the victim's desire for vengeance, and the state is exacting vengeance on their behalf to prevent private retaliation. Such a view finds little support today. Expiration requires the offender to work off his guilt; he must be purified through suffering. The essence of the expiratory view is that in suffering his punishment, the offender has purged his guilt, has paid for his crime, and that his account with society is therefore clear.(Kamier).
The focus is on the past crime with the attempt to wipe the slate clean. These ideas largely stem from religious influences on our culture. However, a deeper psychological explanation has been argued to exist, underlying the offenders need for expiration. Guilt is a state of tension which gives rise to a need for the removal of this tension. From the time we are children we are conditioned to expect this relief through punishment.
Whilst society may offer the chance of expiration, it obviously cannot demand it as the desire for true expiration must flow from the defendant himself. (Miller).
The view that has gained support, whilst theories of punishment such as deterrence and rehabilitation have come under increasing attack, is that we punish criminals primarily because they deserve it. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 followed a White Paper which proclaimed that the aim was better justice through a more consistent approach to sentencing, so that convicted criminals get their just deserts. Just deserts theorists have tended to follow the ideas of Kant that people deserve to be punished if they have broken the law.( Kaminer). Furthermore, all people owe duties to others not to infringe their rights.
Justice and fairness ensure that all people must bear the consequences of obeying the law equally. Thus punishment is necessary to remove the benefits gained by the offender. The concept of just deserts has attracted criticism as there is the suspicion that the idea of desert cannot be distinguished from a principle of vengeance or the unappealing assertion that two wrongs somehow make a right. Although, there are two main advantages to desert based punishment. First, it imposes limits on the states power in that excessive exemplary or incapacitate sentences become unacceptable. Second, it reduces the unjustifiable sentencing disparity, as two offenders whom commit the same crime will receive similar punishments, irrespective of race, culture or background.
When criminals enter a prison the ultimate goal is rehabilitation. Retribution and deterrence attempt to change the criminal through fear of what may happen if future crimes are committed and the criminal is caught. Rehabilitation attempts to fundamentally change the offender and their behavior (Schmalleger pp. 407). Traditionally these behaviors have been modified through education and counseling.
The first endeavor to use rehabilitation in criminals appeared in the late eighteenth century and was directed primarily towards juvenile offenders. The Pennsylvania Quakers used strict religious edicts and punishments to force juvenile criminals to see the error of their ways. These methods evolved into more of a retribution system. The 1930's saw an increased interest in psychological methods of treatment for adult prisoners. This approach became known as the medical model of corrections (Schmalleger pp. 408). As the prisons and jails became more crowded, studies showed that rehabilitation was not working and many criminals were being rotated through the Criminal Justice system. Modern rehabilitation techniques have combined law enforcement, courts, and the medical field together in an attempt to stop repeat offenders. For example, in the State of South Carolina agencies have formed drug courts to allow true drug addicts opportunities to fight their addictions instead of crowding the already burdened jail structure. Many States are implementing these types of intervention programs. These techniques recognize that most crimes have a victim. The victims deserve some type of compensation for what troubles they have suffered. Judges in a lot of jurisdictions are handing sentences that include community service. The criminal must give up time to work in the community that has been violated. Judges in many States have been given the power to force criminals to pay restitution to their victims, instead of forcing victims to seek reparations in Civil Court. It appears that the modern court system has realized that each criminal must be viewed as an individual and not a group. Rehabilitation may work on one person, but be totally ineffective on another. Sad to say, there is probably a small group of criminals out here that incarceration is the only solution.
In the prison system the ultimate goal is restoration through rehabilitation. Yet, when needed, criminals can be subjected to deterrence techniques or incapacitation.
No one system will work for all prisoners. All of the systems have been used through the years and the lesson learned is that prisoners must be handled on a case to case basis.
This is the complete article, containing 1,092 words
(approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).
