Deterrence is one of the punishments to crime. Deterrence in relation to criminal offending is the idea or theory that the threat of punishment will deter people from committing crime and reduce the probability and/or level of offending in society.
What is Deterrence?
-Trying to deter or put off criminal from recommitting crimes or put them off from doing it in the first place.
-Example: people may not speed as there is a financial penalty to deter them.
-Prison is meant to be a deterrence as it limits your freedom as it doesn’t allow you to see loved ones.
-All punishments at their core are meant to in still or deter fear of the punishment
-Tries to make people not commit crime through the fear of being caught
-Studies show people
Moral Issues Raised (KU)
-Rights: promotes exploitation of criminals as they are used as an example
to scare others which is morally wrong ass it is a breach of their rights
-Rights: everyone has the right to feel safe and if we feel fear due to
deterrence, this is wrong
-Duty: we have a duty to helps criminals, deterrence punishments such as
fines could push poor people further into poverty
-Duty: it is our duty to tackle this issue causing crime not to tackle it using
fear.
Christian implications of Deterrence
-Christians may disagree with deterrence as it is exploiting the criminal and not allowing them to get the support they need to change and seek redemption.
-positive impact as Christians would not want to seek revenge and make the problem worse but instead get to the root of the problem.
-positive as could make Christians better people and allow them to know actions have consequences (unlikely to commit)
-negative as could live in fear of being punished by God and could lead to
poor mental health.
Buddhists implications of deterrence (A)
-Buddhism based on the relationship between your actions and the consequences of your actions – so knowing the consequences can deter from behaving in a wrong way.
– Buddhism would not like the idea of using someone as an example to others if it meant treating them too harshly.
– While Buddhists aspire towards non-violence and peace, they may also recognize the complexities of real-world conflicts and the need for pragmatic solutions.
– Buddhists may reflect on the intentions behind the use of force or threats of force. They may question whether such actions arise from a place of compassion and wisdom or from delusion and aggression.
Utilitarian implications of Deterrence (A)
– would support deterrence if the consequences deter criminals from committing future crimes e.g. if prison scares them its ok to use
– may agree if it keeps the majority happy, deterrence could keep majority safe so would approve
– consequence could be if it scares criminals from committing crime,
majority don’t need to be worried and less majority money spent on
justice system and more to benefit health, education etc
– less important to deter, more important to get to the root of problem.
Implications for Society/Individual (A)
-Creates fear and resentment in society.
– prison is a learning environment for crime, prison reinforces criminal identity and may diminish or sever social ties that encourage lawful behaviour and imprisonment is not an appropriate response to the needs of many offenders who require treatment for the underlying causes of their criminality (such as drug, alcohol and mental health issues).
-Long and harsh punishments don’t seem to be any more effective than less severe punishments. In fact, the harsher the punishment, sometimes the harsher a society.
for more articles like this one, click this link here!
For more on deterrence, click here!
