Explain the causes of crime and the response to strategies for preventing crime. It argues that people engage in crime or fail to engage in crime due to the knowledge they have about the positive and negative consequences of the actions that constitute the crime. Deterrence theory was created in the period between the sixteenth century and the nineteenth century. Among the philosophers involved in the formulation of this theory include Thomas Hobbes, Cesare Beccaria, and Jeremy Bentham. These theorists did not live during the same period; Thomas Hobbes lived in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Cesare Beccaria lived in the eighteenth century, and Jeremy lived in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Tomlinson, 2016).
The criminal justice system can be viewed as an institution that applies the deterrence theory in its operations. By punishing the offenders who have been tried and found to be guilty, it is able to showcase those who have not committed a crime, the pain, regrets, and agony that engulfs the convicted persons. The main intention is to inflict fear and make those who have not offended not do so. On the contrary, the deterrence theory is also used by criminals in assessing the value of engaging in crime. The key concept in this theory is the comparison between the benefits against the risks and negative consequences of the crime. Criminals perform this comparison whenever they intend to engage in a crime (Tomlinson, 2016). If it happens that the benefits associated with the crime seem more than the risks of conviction, criminals may consider engaging in crime.
Article one
Bates, L., Darvell, M. J., & Watson, B. (2017). Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’(non) compliance. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 50(1), 23-38.
This article contains a report for research that is aimed at examining the association between the perceptions of young drivers that are related to deterrence and the level of compliance that they portray as far as the requirements of the graduate drivers licensing are concerned. The research was conducted with participants being drivers, both male, and females between the age of seventeen and twenty-four years. It was done in Australia. The sample that took part in the study was large in that it consisted of two hundred and thirty-six drivers. These drivers were of a specific range of age, between seventeen and twenty-four years. In this study, the major information that the researcher obtained was employment status, type of driving license, the hours that one drives in a week. Additionally, the research looked at the personal punishment, personal enforcement, personal avoidance, parental enforcement, and different deterrence experiences that the drivers have had.
The findings of the research show that the drivers who held the P2 type of driving license had a high possibility of engaging in the violation of transient rules and were overall less compliant with the set rules as compared to the P1 license holders. The P2 license holders, on the other hand, showcased a high level of influence of parental control and enforcement; this was the source of deterrence in this case. Additionally, it was also found that the drivers who experienced a high level of enforcement measure were poor when it came to adhering to the set laws as compared to the P1 license holders. In this case, the researcher saw that the previous punishments rendered on the drivers did not seem to have an influence on the way that these drivers committed future offenses. Generally, whereas the initial punishment for these drivers was expected to prevent them from engaging in any other offense, this punishment did not seem to have an effect on them. Actually, the drivers’ probability of engaging in non-compliant behavior when traffic rules are concerned seems to increase with an increase in the licensing class. In other words, the drivers’ progression in the GDL increased their level of non-compliance to traffic rules. Further, deterrence is more evident when there is some parental involvement in the driver’s control.
Article 2
Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., & Thomas, K. J. (2014). Incentivizing responses to self-report questions in perceptual deterrence studies: An investigation of the validity of deterrence theory using Bayesian truth serum. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(4), 677-707.
This article seeks to assess the accuracy of deterrence measures in public. In this research, the major thing that was needed from the participants who took part in the research was honesty and willingness to tell about their personal experiences with the criminal justice system. The research was conducted in a self-reporting way, and the information needed was specific for every individual who took part. The participants who took part in the research were a hundred and thirty-seven undergraduate students taken from different major universities in the United States. Their ages ranged between eighteen and twenty-five years, and they were of different races. The method used in the research was through a questionnaire where the participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses; they were also not to input any identifying information whatsoever. The different variables that the researchers were much interested in were the willingness of the respondents to offend, reporting involvement, and the perceived risk in four different offenses, namely drunk driving, cheating in an examination, smoking marijuana, and texting while driving.
The analysis of the responses given by the participants revealed that there are significant differences in what the participants stated on matters of self-reporting, the number of times that one engaged in an offense, and the possibility of being arrested. The participants who had Bayesian truth serum reported that they had greater willingness to offend but their risk of drinking and driving and cheating in their examinations. Further, there is observed an inverse relationship between the willingness to offend and perceived risk. There were, however, raised questions regarding the nature and accuracy of the responses offered by the respondent. The participants somehow failed to offer responses that were truthful and aligning with what they believed. Further exploration for the Bayesian truth serum was suggested in future research to help in unveiling the effectiveness of the self-reporting activities as required for the research. Additionally, there was a challenge in the research, more so on statistical relationship for perceived risk and the offending behavior among the respondents. General, the research can be termed a success only for the minor challenges in statistics and effectiveness in the provision of truthful information.
Discussion
The findings in the two research articles do not showcase a positive relationship between the deterrence elements and the willingness of the respondents to refrain from offending. In the first article, as the drivers increased in their license level, they also increased their knowledge of the adverse effects that they risk due to their offenses. This increase led to poor adherence to traffic rules. In this case, it can be seen that deterrence does not work in favor of the authorities who enact the rules and use them to punish and make the respondents fearful of future offenses. In the second article, though there is some mishap in the statistical analysis, the greater number of respondents portray minimal urge to refrain from engaging in offenses even in the presence of deterrence elements. In light of the elements that make a good theory, the deterrence theory can be thought of as one that is composed of definitions, concepts, generalizations, and assumptions. It has also showcased the ability to explain and describe concepts. Further, from the research, the deterrence theory is seen as one that prompts more knowledge development.
Conclusion
The theory can be thought of as fairly strong in regard to the results of the research. Deterrence is in the first instance imparted by parental guidance for the drivers. In the second research article, the statistics have brought about some issues rendering it a challenge for the researcher to depend on data for making conclusions. However, the inability to prove the strength of the research information may be due to the fact that the respondents showcased the prevalence of Bayesian truth serum. All in all, this challenge has prompted the need for future research.
The policy implications for deterrence theory include the need to support the creation of enforcement agencies that work more effectively in increasing measures to deter criminals from engaging in crime. Additionally, the understanding of the theory can help in the establishment of ways in which proceeds of crime can be tackled to prevent the general rate of occurrence of crimes. Further, there needs to be a creation of a way that allows the prosecution of conspiracy offenses as well as racketeering offenses (Williams, 2012). Through this prosecution and conviction with justifiable punishment, there is a possibility of prevention of future crimes through deterrence.
References
Bates, L., Darvell, M. J., & Watson, B. (2017). Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers’(non) compliance. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 50(1), 23-38.
Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., & Thomas, K. J. (2014). Incentivizing responses to self-report questions in perceptual deterrence studies: An investigation of the validity of deterrence theory using Bayesian truth serum. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(4), 677-707.
Tomlinson, K. D. (2016). An examination of deterrence theory: Where do we stand. Fed. Probation, 80, 33.
Williams, G. W. (2012). Policy implications of different theoretical approaches to organized crime. Journal of Financial Cri
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|