Evaluation of Deterrence Theory - Research Paper Example

?Deterrence theory Introduction Deterrence theory is one of the theories of crime that attempt to explain criminal offence among individuals. According to Vito & Maahs (2011), deterrence theory states that people will engage in criminal behavior when it brings them pleasure and carries little risks of pain. The theory is based on the argument that individuals will always look at the gains and losses associated with an activity before being involved in that activity. Using the argument the theory proposes that crime rates could reduce when risks of the crime is increased by imposing severe punishments. In this paper, I purpose to evaluate this theory to find out whether it can be regarded as a good criminology theory. There are various ways in which a scientific theory can be evaluated. Most of these methods of evaluation depend on the type of the theory, what the theory proposes and the concepts of the theory that can be used in evaluation. In my evaluation I use the evaluation method proposed by Akers and Seller. In this technique the theory is evaluated using its scope, logical consistency, parsimony, testability, empirical validity and its usefulness and policy implication. A major advantage of this method it that it can give us the chance to evaluate almost all the aspects of this theory. Theory Discussion This theory uses the idea that fear of punishment or negative consequences resulting from committing a crime can cause individuals to refrain from committing offences (Maimon, 2012). One of the things this theory uses in explaining criminology is the human rationality. It says that human nature is motivated to do something that has more gains than losses. Therefore, if someone sees that he will have more loss than gain from a crime when he is caught, he will be motivated to refrain from the crime. This theory thus proposes that severe punishments should be imposed on crimes and offences to increase the risks that a person exposes himself to when committing them. The theory also uses the concept of individual’s free will and the power of a person to make calculated choices in explaining crime. This theory states that people commit crimes due to the drive to do so from their free will without being directed to do so by someone else. However, it indicate that in making a choice to commit a crime individuals analyze the gains and losses which might result from the choices they want to make. As a result, the choices they make are always calculated to make sure they maximize gains while minimizing risks. If severe punishments are imposed on crimes they will make the crimes to be less attractive and hence make individuals to refrain from them (Maimonet al, 2012). This theory explains individual offending and how people can be deterred from committing crimes. It suggests that imposing formal legal punishments can deter individuals from offending. However, according to Maimonet al (2012), the theory explains that the deterrent effectiveness of these formal legal punishments depends on their severity, certainty, and celerity. Severity of a punishment can be described as its strictness and harshness. Certaintyof punishment is itsundoubtedness while celerity of a punishment is the swiftness in which that punishment is undertaken. Therefore, for any punishment imposed for a certain crime to be effective, it must be strict and harsh, undoubted and should be undertaken swiftly without delays. Evaluation of the theory This theory can be evaluated using several means. The main objective of evaluating this theory like the other theories is to determine how effective it has been in achieving its objectives. The objective of this theory is to explain offending in individuals and how this can be reduced so in how evaluation we determine how well this has been achieve in places it has been employed. According to Akers & Seller (2004), a good theory must have a good scope, must be logically consistent, parsimonious, testable, usefulness and policy implications as well as empirical validity. Scope The scope of a theory is the collection of occurrences that the theory proposes to explain (Akers & Seller, 2004). This theory accounts for a wide range of offences like violence and gender harassment and crimes like robbery and rape. It can also account for crimes or offences done in different places like schools, streets, residential places and other places where crime can happen. Due to this, we can regard this theory to be having a very good scope and hence in terms of scope, it is a good theory. Logical consistency Deterrence theory has clearly defined concepts with logically stated and internally consistent propositions. It has no form of contradicting concepts or propositions. Its concepts are well explained and relate well with each other without any of them trying to reduce the weight of the other. In these terms, we can say that this theory is a good theory from our evaluation. Parsimony “Parsimony is the conciseness and abstractness of a set of concepts and propositions” (Akers & Seller, 2008, pg. 6). The concepts of these theories are succinct in the way in which they are stated. A good example is the way the concept of legal punishment resulting to reduced crime is stated. The proposition also are concise stating directly what they propose like the one proposing that deterrence effectiveness can be increased by using legal punishment which are severe, certain and swift. Hence, this theory has a good parsimony and therefore on this basis we can regard it as a good theory. Testability For us to regard a theory as testable we should be able to verify it or disapprove it using appropriate empirical evidence (Akers & Seller, 2008). Most of the concepts of this theory can be verified or disapprove using observation data. Propositions also can form variable which can which can help in either approving or disapproving them through the analysis of the observation data. This property of this theory indicates that the theory is testable and hence it can be regarded as a good theory. Empirical validity For us to conclude that a theory has a good empirical validity, it should have enough research evidence that supports it (Akers & Seller, 2008). To date there is no evidence to show that increase in severity of punishments given in schools actually prevent individuals from offending (Maimonet al. 2012). Considering a case of students, we can consider a research taken to investigate whether increase in the practice of giving harsh disciplinary actions in schools results to a reduction in offences. We use this field to research about deterrence theory since there have been severe punishment which have been put in schools to try to minimize offences. Some of these severe punishments which have been employed in schools include suspensions, expulsions or even taking the offending student to a criminal law court. The data about the current rate of criminal behavior can be easily obtained and then compared with what was previously gotten when the theory was not in use. It is also possible to model this data to be able to detect the changes and also to be able to predict what future changes might be if the theory continues to be in use in those schools. Our objective is to determine whether this this research could support the theory and thus promote its empirical validity. The findings from this research indicated that sanctions on students increase the individual level of misbehavior. It also indicates that it hinder the reflective decision making in students. In this research, we also found out that most schools impose punishments that do not give the offender chance to change his behavior. These severe punishments also hinder cognitive decision-making process among the students (Maimonet al, 2012). From this research, it is clear that severe punishments and sanctions do not reduce offending and misbehaving in students. It even indicates that in some cases imposing these punishments can result to an increase in misbehaving especially through hindering cognitive decision-making process and reflective decision-making. When we modeled this data it was clear that the rates of crime among students is expected to increase if the theory continues to be put into use in controlling students offending. Since they cannot reduce cases of indiscipline in students, we cannot expect it to have significant impact in deterring individuals from offending. Thus, this research evidence contradicts the deterrence theory states. These and other research studies have evidence that fails to support this theory makes us to conclude that the theory lacks empirical validity and thus it is not a good criminology theory. Usefulness and policy implications By evaluating this theory using the usefulness it has revealed and its policy implications, we have to look at whether it can be used in generating good policies that can be used to reduce offences. From previous research shows that policies that use strict sanctions do not result to a reduction in the number of offences that are recorded. These shows that this theory is very ineffective it term of policy formulation. It is therefore fails in terms of its usefulness and policy implications and it is thus not a good criminology theory. Conclusion From our evaluation, it is clear that this theory has both negative and positive aspects that can be used to determine whether it is a good criminology theory. These theory has a good scope, has logical consistence, and it is both parsimonious and testable. These being characteristics of a good criminology theory, it can make us to be tempted to conclude that this theory is a good one. However, the theory fails to have empirical validity and usefulness and policy implications. These two aspects are critical in determining the effectiveness of a theory as a criminology theory and hence since they are not met we can conclude from our evaluation that this deterrence theory is not a good criminology theory. Reference Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008).Criminology Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and Application. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Maimon, D. et al. (2012). Severe Sanctions, Easy Choice?Investigating the Role of School Sanctions in Preventing Adolescent Violent Offending.Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crim. Vito, G., &Maahs, J. (2011).Criminology: Theory, Research and Policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Read More