Sociology

The concept of deterrence
In the most simple terms, the word deterrence means fear of punishment. It can be described as the prevention of unethical behavior in the society through fear of getting punished. A person who is a potential criminal is forced to avoid committing a criminal offence simply by remembering the harsh consequences associated with such a crime. There are two types of deterrence which are general and special deterrence. General deterrence indicates the deterrent effect of the fear of punishment while special deterrence, also known as individual deterrence, indicates the impact of the real punishment on the person committing crime (Wieseltier, 1985).

The main principle of deterrence is the dread of penalty. The dread of penalty may be as a result of previous experience. When an individual has undergone the process of punishment, heshe is conversant with the whole process and this reinforces the fear for being involved in the criminal activity. It is also possible for the experience of punishment to work in the reverse direction, especially in conditions where the offender had blown up the previous experience only to end up concluding that the punishment accorded was not that dreading as heshe had thought. An individual who has been involved in a more serious crime which landed himher into jail usually has no fear for committing another offence. Distinguishing the deterrent effects of the prison experience from other effects associated with being in prison is not possible. Deterrence can only be measured by checking how the offenders behave after being punished (Preet, 2009).

Deterrence has the effect of dread on the potential criminal but also other effects which come as a result of risk and imposition of punishment. Criminal law is a symbol of societys disapproval of unethical activities and it influences the people in several ways. Many people have a specific value for official law. Illegalization of some specific type of behavior may function as an example, enabling people to recognize the socially dangerous feature of an activity (Wu, 2005). The moral prohibition showed via the criminal law has influence on the moral attitudes of a person in a less thoughtful manner. The effects of the criminal law include moral, educative, socializing, attitude shaping, or the custom reinforcing effect of the law. According to the view of law makers, formation of moral condemnations is more significant than simple deterrence since moral condemnation functions even under conditions where an individual does not need to dread detection and punishment. In countries like Germany and Scandinavia, the moral prohibition in crime prevention is highly valued as compared to deterrence. The moral effect of criminal system which is based on the application of doctrines of fairness, proportionality and equal treatment are highly upheld as compared to harshness of punishments offered (Warburton, 1999).

General prevention includes the impact of fear and the moral impact of the criminal law. It is considered the same as general deterrence in the broad sense however, the term deterrent concentrates on the effect of dread. Most research papers on the topic of deterrence fail to tackle the meaning of the word deterrence and apply the broader concept because they are focused on the effects of crime rates of the system of criminal justice and include the effects which result from the mechanisms apart from fear. Respect for the law is customary and the fear of punishment contributes to the development of this habit. A good example is the motorists reaction to the traffic signals. Deterrence can also be considered to include habituative effects of the law. For a habit to develop, observance must come first from other sources which might include dread and value for the law. Habit is therefore developed through replication of the law enduring activity (Bunt, 1994).

Recent Research on Deterrence
There have been various researches conducted to prove whether severity of punishment accorded to the criminals can prevent future crimes. The results obtained from these studies were not similar because of the research method used, sample used, and the factors considered by various researchers (Wieseltier, 1985).

According to the research which was conducted by Jeffrey Fagan in the year 2006 on the topic death and deterrence redux, it was concluded that the research failed to support deterrence debate. Another study on the topic is Life versus death Who should capital punishment marginally deter conducted by Charles Keckler. It showed that the measures of the effects of death penalty have gradually provided proof that it reduces the rate of homicide. Other researchers rely on the fact of the offenders behavior. The study tried to scrutinize whether it is practical to speculate that there is an insignificant increase in deterrence due to raising the sentence from life imprisonment without considering capital punishment. The insignificant increase realized is attributed to the prison conditions as they are expected by the would be offender. If potential offenders view imprisonment as being not too bad, then the imprisonment will have less deterrent effects on the potential offenders (Preet, 2009).

The study also tackled the topic of experimental believe in the existence of murderers who are not scared of imprisonment but might be scared with the capital punishment. Criminals have been shown to dread capital punishment through sacrificing the most significant rights at the times of plea by bargaining to avoid this penalty. This usually results in increasing the number of years one is expected to serve for the offence of murder, and may have some deterrent effects on the death penalty. Death penalty to some offenders stimulates massive precaution when involving in activities like dangerous brutality, and the deterrent effect is measured through changed behavior in such people. Isolation of groups in which death penalty have the highest marginal effect indicates that improvements in sentencing which concentrates on expensive capital safety measures on the offenders who are numb to substitute criminal sanctions (Bunt, 1994).

Study conducted by Michael Radelet et. al. on the topic deterrence and death penalty was to try and resolve if the capital punishment has been, is, or could be a common deterrent to murder. The study involved interviewing the present and the former leaders of three professional criminology organizations so as to get their views on the topic of study. About 80 of the experts interviewed believed that the study failed to support deterrence proof for death penalty. More than 75 believed that increasing the rates of executions or reducing the period spent on death row before being murdered have no deterrent effects (Warburton, 1999).

Criticism of deterrence
The most serious criticism of it is that it can be used to justify deterrence in individuals who have not committed any crime, the crime which they are punished for. Punishing an individual who is widely believed to have committed a crime may impose some fear on the people who were also thinking of committing the same crime without knowing that the person punished was innocent. In such situations, this theory justifies punishing innocent individuals so as to scare others from getting involved in criminal activities. Any reasonable deterrent theory of punishment must meet this opposition (Wieseltier, 1985).

Deterrent theory is considered to be ineffective way of stopping crime. Locking up criminals in jails only protects the society for a short period, and in the long term a more dangerous society emerges because when the criminals meet in jails they teach one another how to dodge justice after committing crime. In this case, life imprisonment is the only alternative for serious criminal offences so that the community can be protected. In the process of protecting the society, there should also be efforts directed at reforming the character of criminals (Bunt, 1994).

Another criticism to deterrence is that criminals should not be given death penalty so as to scare away others who may want to get involved in the same crime. Even in history there has been a repeat of wars throughout despite the consequences which come with it. The same applies to murderers who continue committing the crime even with the knowledge of the punishment associated with it (Preet, 2009). Instead of concentrating on the punishment, we should consider other factors which make these people involve themselves in crime and instill into them the moral ethics required. They should be made to understand that killing is wrong. Punishment is supposed to deter, rehabilitate, and to protect the society of which most of the punishment offered do not fulfill.