Essay Sample on The Deterrence Theory of Crime
The deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishments are used to disavow people from committing crimes. There are two different types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is a punishment to an individual to stop society from committing crimes. Specific deterrence is a punishment to an individual to prevent that individual from committing other crimes in the future. In the community that we live in, crime and corruption are inevitable, and the death penalty reins as the most severe punishment you can receive for a crime, as the death penalty acts as a glass ceiling for the most heinous crimes a person can commit. The death penalty acts almost as both a specific and general deterrence. It deters people from committing the same crime and stops the perpetrator from committing the crime ever again. Yet, the idea of death hasn’t always deterred criminals from still committing crimes.
People who agree with the death penalty say it is an essential tool for preserving law and order as it deters crime and costs less than life imprisonment. The main argument for the death penalty is the idea for retribution or “an eye for an eye” as it helps honors the victim, allows grieving families a sense of reconciliation, and ensures that the perpetrators of the crimes never have an opportunity to commit future tragedy. It coincides with the essence of deterrence theory because the threat of being executed in the future will be sufficient to cause a significant number of people to refrain from committing a heinous crime they had otherwise planned (DPIC).
Some of the beginning studies on deterrence consisted primarily of comparisons between states that provided capital punishment for first-degree homicide and those with no death penalty. These early studies also examined the homicide rates in states before and after they abolished capital punishment. According to these studies, they found out that the provision or absence of the death penalty in state statutes leads to no effect on the homicide rate (Criminological Theories). All crimes can be deterred the same way, and no one should receive the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread or a minor petty crime. Different types of crimes should have different types of punishment. The death penalty should exist because some of the horrendous crimes committed by some people should be sentenced to death. Still, the deterrence of a life sentence for these heinous crimes is sometimes more severe and less expensive punishment than death. The main problem with the death penalty is that studies have shown no link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates (DPIC)
The certainty of punishment of the deterrence theory with the death penalty punishment for a crime is severe, certain, and swift, citizens will rationally calculate that more is to be lost than gained from crime, as the loss of their life is worth more. In the idea of retribution, if one human life is taken the one responsible for taking their life shall lose their own life. The celerity of the death penalty is not always fast, because sometimes the prisoner may sit on death row for a period of time. There have been some cases where the inmates were innocent and had their sanctions appealed so it's not a swift process.
The death penalty has pros and cons for the deterrence of crime, the death penalty is more debunked as a deterrent mainly because there's no credible evidence or studies that show the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have the death penalty in place do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than the states that don't have the death penalty.
