Definitions of Deterrence

Definitions of Deterrence

- "deterrence can be thought of as the omission of an act as a response to the perceived risk and fear of punishment for contrary behaviour" (Gibbs, 1975:2)

- "Any measure designed actively to impeded, discourage, or restrain the way in which another might think or act" (Cooper 1973:164)

- "Principally a matter of the declaration of some harm, loss, or pain that will follow noncompliance; in short, the central concept is that of threat" (Zimring and Hawkins 1973: 7)

-  all these definitions talk about the future; how do we prevent future offences

o Gibbs  focuses on prediction of future behaviour of offender

o Cooper  focuses on lowering the crime rate

o Zimring/Hawkins  focus on the process by which crime rate is lowered, doing something to make them reconsider their criminal acts

- Specific deterrence  deterring someone from committing a crime again

- General deterrence  deterring society from committing crimes

Beccaria

- The Enlightenment

o There is an answer to every question, and that if you use the scientific method you can figure it out

o Key word  rationality

o Human beings have minds that can be curbed to act civilized; not animalistic

o Liberal thought; freedom from iron fist ruling mentality

- Utilitarianism

o "The greatest happiness shared by the greatest number" (Beccaria, as quoted in Grupp 1974:117)

 Right and wrong  right actions create happiness, wrong actions reduce happiness

 But what happens to those who don't fall into the greatest number (ex. the homeless, young voters, minorities)

o Middle ground

 Deterrence  how we weigh law and order with freedom

o Social contract

 Beccaria has similar views to Hobbes; that if people could get away with it they would just kill each other; people only care about themselves

 Therefore it is a rational decision to join social contract, so state can protect us.

 Contrast with last week's idea of social contract, that we willingly become part of a collective conscience of shared morals (as if we like each other)

o Rationality

 Laws are the conditions that independent men set to form a society  they're there to keep society together, practical tool to govern society, not an oppressive tool

 Social contract is necessary for people to buy into, otherwise their passions would run amuck

* Vengeance was seen as some savage, irrational thing now

o The right to punish

 Who's job is it to punish?  the sovereign/King or Queen/state

 As opposed to letting people seek their own vengeance

 State must enact right amount of punishment to maintain order

* Can't be too much, because that would create tyranny which is just as evil as the crime

* Too little punishment won't deter people from committing crime

- Working with Utilitarianism

o Law

 Only laws can state what the punishments are going to be

 Must be clear and obvious, legal vs. illegal, not right vs. wrong

 Punishments must also be written down and codified

 Because if you leave punishment up to people themselves, they won't be rational.

o Separation between legislation and judiciary

 People who write the law can't also enforce the law

* Can change it on a whim

* Too much concentration of power  tyrannical

* Increases accountability by separating the power

o Only as much punishment as necessary

 That right amount of punishment to create a fair society

 Too much punishment would make us all slaves and not happy citizens (Beccaria)

 If you're not a happy citizen, you won't believe in the social contract or have a reason to obey the law anymore

 Trying to balance public safety, with not giving too much power to higher-ups

o No judicial discretion

 Equality of punishment and sentencing, judges can't change things for certain people for certain circumstances

 Judges can't add own spin or opinion on anything, or else there's bias

 Beccaria believes that judges can't be trusted to be impartial of their own accord and so they must be forced to give up their discretion in sentencing

 We have to believe that judge will do that and not bring own opinion, only way we will be okay with this system and buy into social contract

 Basically, you don't want two people who commit the same crime to have different punishments

o Accessibility

 Laws should be available to everyone

 Law can't be too vague, but also can't be too specific because then there will be too much of it

- How much Punishment?

o Punishment = Harm + Certainty + 1

 How much harm was done by the crime must be done to the criminal

 The +1  the punishment must be just enough to outweigh the