as a Model of Crime Control
_____ University
DETERRENCE THEORY 2
Introduction
Deterrence theory has been rooted in the field of Sociology for quite some time, so an abundance of research exists regarding its effectiveness. There is more crime control policies currently utilized within the criminal justice system than is readily realized. Mandatory sentences and capital punishment serve as great examples, and these types of laws and crime control policy were created to serve as deterrents of crime (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011). If one member of society is aware that another member of society was punished for an act of crime, this should theoretically deter other members of society from committing the same criminal acts. As we know, criminal acts of all types continue to occur on a daily basis, and this has led scores of researchers to question the effectiveness of the deterrence theory. For the purposes of this essay, an analysis of effectiveness will be achieved by observing deterrence theory on a both an individual and general level of analysis.
Specific and General Deterrence
DETERRENCE THEORY 3
(Durlauf and Nagin, 2011). According to the theory of deterrence, people choose to obey or violate the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions (Ritzer, 2010).
Deterrence Theory as a Model of Crime Control
Mandatory sentencing guidelines are intended to serve as specific and general types of deterrence for both citizens and previously incarcerated criminals. In fact, the majority of all criminals currently imprisoned in the United States are serving mandatory sentences (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011). Authors Durlauf and Nagin (2011) hypothesize that the very existence of the deterrence theory as a crime control model automatically contributes to higher rates of incarceration in the United States. This is primarily due to concepts and initiatives such as “three strikes,” “truth in sentencing,” “zero-tolerance,” and, most importantly, minimum sentencing laws (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011). Additionally, these mandatory guidelines were initially implemented to provide restitution, decrease disparities in judicial discretion, deter future criminal acts, and through deterrence, reduce rates of recidivism (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011). However, the authors argue that the deterrence theory has failed to adequately keep individuals from becoming criminal and being incarcerated by the obvious rates at which criminals offend and are imprisoned. Durlauf and Nagin (2011) analyzed secondary data regarding rates of imprisonment for first-time and habitual offenders, and found that first-time offenders were more likely to reoffend than not.
According to the article by Durlauf and Nagin (2011), the deterrence theory is currently failing to serve as an effective crime control model in our criminal justice system. Authors Diquero, Paternoster, Pogarsky, and Loughran (2011) do not contend that the effectiveness of the
DETERRENCE THEORY 4
deterrence theory can be measured by rates of incarceration. Rather, the authors argue that the theory of deterrence should be viewed as an individual component of crime control policy (Diquero et al., 2011). Social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, and decision-making competence are described as important variables that can be used to determine how likely an individual will respond to deterrence within the criminal justice system (Diquero et al., 2011). If a first-time offender, for example, was previously incarcerated on a drug crime, upon their release, and according to the deterrence theory, that individual should be less likely to commit a crime. However, Diquero et al. (2011) argues that if an individual is impulsive, coupled with a social bond that makes them more likely to commit a crime, then the memory of their incarceration may not be a strong enough deterrent to keep them from reoffending. Therefore, the authors suggest a turn away from mandatory sentencing and punitive sanctions, and instead, broaden the theory of deterrence to look at all sociological variables that increase an individual’s chances of offending.
Conclusion
In summation, the deterrence theory should continue to be accepted as a model of crime control within the criminal justice system. Even though the majority of research on this topic is based on secondary data collected from rates of imprisonment, rates of first-time offenders, and rates of recidivism (Durlauf and Nagin, 2011), Sociologists and Criminologists need to continue assessing other societal variables that may aid in clarifying the actual effectiveness of the deterrence theory as a crime control model. The deterrence theory continues to exemplify right from wrong in the realm of criminal justice.
DETERRENCE THEORY 5
References
Diquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., and Loughran, T. (2011). Elaborating the
individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 335-360. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404.
Durlauf, S. N., and Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime. Criminology and Public
Policy, 10(1), 13-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00680.x.
