Corrections Deterrence What Is Deterrence?

Corrections

Deterrence

What is deterrence? What criminological theory underlies this perspective? Based on the existing evidence, do correctional sanctions "work" to reduce crime? That is, is deterrence effective?

Deterrence is the idea that a person consciously tries to avoid pain and seek pleasure (Nagin, n.d.). If a person makes a choice that brings them a lot of pain the idea is that they will not make that choice again because it was too painful. Deterrence theory is based on the notion that, if the result of committing a crime outweighs the gain of the crime itself, a person will be deterred from committing the crime. This is based on the idea that all people are aware of the difference between right and wrong and the consequences connected with wrong or criminal behaviors. In the case of deterrence, the criminological framework at use is rational choice theory. The key issue is whether this criminological rationalization is comprehensive enough to base an entire correctional system on; some do not think so.

This theory implies that crime is a choice; and that this choice is rational based on a calculation of costs and benefits. From the very fact that someone engages in an act, it can be inferred that a choice has been made. The distinctive thing with rational choice theory is that it assumes that choices are rooted in a conscious assessment of costs and benefits. This all sounds like this practice would work all the time and every time but this has not been found to be the case. Due to the fact that most correctional punishments are not immediate and not certain it is hard to make punishments efficient which is one hindrance to achieving large deterrent effects with this theory (Nagin, n.d.).

Another problem with this theory problem is that of individual differences. Not everyone experiences the threat of a correctional punishment the same way. In particular, some people pay attention to future consequences but others do not, or at least not as much. Some people are more impulsive, short-sighted, inebriated, under the sway of peer influence. They are not good at paying attention to future consequences. But paying attention to future consequences is essential if someone is to be deterred by the threat or even the imposition of a criminal punishment (Nagin, n.d.).

In a study done by Lynch (1999) it was shown that in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's there was a noticeable increase in the rate of incarceration. An examination of the incarceration and crime data from 1972-1993 revealed that there was no evidence of deterrence at the collective level for the U.S. Additional analysis of cross-sectional crime and imprisonment trends for 1980 through 1991 also failed to offer any basic support for the deterrence hypothesis. This study showed that imprisonment does not deter most criminals. In fact, over the twenty-one year period examined, crime went up along with rates of incarceration. This indicates a need to rethink the position concerning the deterrent effects of penalties, and to consider the importance of causal theories that address the causes and generation of crime from other perspectives.