Answer to Question #298740 in Sociology for Sandreena S Jackson

Question

• Pick a famous politician, business leader, or celebrity who has been arrested recently.
• What crime did he or she allegedly commit?
• Who was the victim?
• Explain his or her actions from the point of view of one of the major sociological paradigms.
• What factors best explain how this person might be punished if convicted of the crime?

Answer 1

Deterrence:

Deterrence aims to prevent future crime and can focus on specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence deals with making an individual less likely to commit a future crime because of fear of getting a similar or worse punishment. General deterrence refers to the impact on members of the public who become less likely to commit a crime after learning of the punishment another person experienced. 

In broad terms punishment may be expected to affect deterrence in one of two ways. First, by increasing the certainty of punishment, potential offenders may be deterred by the risk of apprehension. For example, if there is an increase in the number of state troopers patrolling highways on a holiday weekend, some drivers may reduce their speed in order to avoid receiving a ticket. Second, the severity of punishment may influence behavior if potential offenders weigh the consequences of their actions and conclude that the risks of punishment are too severe. This is part of the logic behind “three strikes,” and “truth in sentencing” policies, to utilize the threat of very severe sentences in order to deter some persons from engaging in criminal behavior. One problem with deterrence theory is that it assumes that human beings are rational actors who consider the consequences of their behavior before deciding to commit a crime; however, this is often not the case. For example, half of all state prisoners were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offense.

 

Therefore, it is unlikely that such persons are deterred by either the certainty or severity of punishment because of their temporarily impaired capacity to consider the pros and cons of their actions. Another means of understanding why deterrence is more limited than often assumed can be seen by considering the dynamics of the criminal justice system. If there was 100% certainty of being apprehended for committing a crime, few people would do so. But since most crimes, including serious ones, do not result in an arrest and conviction, the overall deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is substantially reduced. Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions.

Economists often come to different conclusions than criminologists on the value of harsher sentences in reducing crime. While criminologists tend to regard various legal threats as the result of a complex and unpredictable process, economists approach the issue along the lines of a rational choice perspective that considers the risk and benefits of engaging in crime; sanctions merely represent the expected price of engaging in criminal behavior. In critiquing this perspective, Michael Tony, a leading scholar on crime and punishment, contends that “Such research is incapable of taking into account whether and to what extent purported policy changes are implemented, whether and to what extent their adoption or implementation is perceived by would-be offenders, and whether and to what extent offenders are susceptible to influence by perceived changes in legal threats.

At the very least, macro-level research on deterrent effects should test the null hypothesis of no effect rather than the price theory assumption that offenders’ behavior will change in response to changes in legal threats.”2 Another problem in assessing deterrence is that in order for sanctions to deter, potential offenders must be aware of sanction risks and consequences before they commit an offense. In this regard, research illustrates that the general public tends to underestimate the severity of sanctions generally imposed.3, 4 This is not surprising given that members of the public are often unaware of the specifics of sentencing policies. Potential offenders are also unlikely to be aware of modifications to sentencing policies, thus diminishing any deterrent effect. The absence of such data on awareness of punishment risks makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the deterrent effects of sanction levels and prospects. Below we explore these outcomes in greater detail.

 

Reference

https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf