Deterrence General and Specific
For example showing juveniles the process from being arrested, booked, charged, sentenced, and then incarcerated. The goal by doing this would be to teach the non-offender that if they chose a life of crime this is what would happen, and what they would receive as punishment for their actions. General deterrence to me would benefit Idaho’s youth better by exposing them to the actual reality of a life of crime, vs. only being told not to do it and it’s wrong. I think the actual exposure would impact them more than just verbal influence.
As stated in (Fagin, 2011), “The concept based on the logic that people who witness the pain suffered by those who commit crimes will desire to avoid that pain and suffering”. Example being in other countries, parents will bring their children to witness physical punishment of the offender. I wouldn’t say this would be something Idaho should use but, general deterrence should be more than drug prevention week in schools, and parents simply informing that committing crimes are bad and you’ll go to jail.
Deterrence General and Specific Essay Example
Enforcing drug prevention, parental influence with actual exposure to the consequences I feel would create a stronger deterrence from juveniles committing crimes. Specific Deterrence is after a person has committed a crime, then punished. The specific purpose is after the offender has committed a crime, the offender should receive a harsh punishment to hopefully prevent any future crimes. The thought being after a juvenile has committed a crime; if he/she receives a harsh punishment/sentence they would be less likely to commit a criminal act again.
This philosophy is a good idea for today’s youth to not only punishing them for the criminal act committed, but hopefully having been given a harsh sentence or punishment, forcing them to rethink any future participation in criminal acts. When stating receive a harsh punishment, I am not saying for them to receive a “hands on” physical punishment, what I feel is appropriate is them to receive jail time in both a prison (only for a limited time), then complete the incarceration in a juvenile detention center.
Followed by community service, mandatory counseling, a written letter of the crime they committed, including the circumstances leading up to the crime, why they committed it, how they feel about their choices made, what they’ve lost or gained from the criminal act, if they feel they actually did something wrong, if so how they will avoid committing future crimes. The offender should also somehow pay restitution to the victim of the crime (depending on the crime). With both, there are of course drawbacks.
Specifically focused on general deterrence, first drawback would be to how Idaho could create a preventative program that isn’t considered to be over the top or out of line. Another issue is gaining funding to create a preventative program. The parents of the youth also have to being willing to allow/ support subjecting their children to the program created, the parents and community need to support prevention of criminal behavior before it stops. Finally having people willing to create, review, improve and maintain any program created for prevention.
With specific deterrence the drawback would be if the offender has indeed learned anything, and if so is willing to take the necessary steps to prevent themselves from being involved again in any criminal act. The biggest drawback with both is the environment in which they are exposed to, and how to help the offender or non-offender on the right path if where they live is a known neighborhood to have high crime rates, or if the offender or non-offender are limited in support to encourage and help them stay away from participating in criminal behaviors.
I believe this program would be a valuable resource for our youth and prevention of them becoming involved in criminal behaviors, inevitably resulting in committing crime. Despite the listed drawbacks, if able to gain community support with prevention of crime with our future youth as well as creating a prevention program that works with people willing to enforce and seek out ways to improve the program, this ideally could help Idaho’s youth ot only with drug addictions, but also committing crimes. Idaho’s criminal justice system, community, schools and parents of Idaho’s youths, focus shouldn’t be waiting until something happens then act and punish, but to come together as a whole to prevent our youth becoming an offender for whatever situation that placed them in the court system.
If Idaho was to embrace a strong, life changing, informational program that subjected the youth to a reality check of the actually consequences if they commit a crime, in my opinion it would be a valuable asset in keeping our community safe, crime rate down, and not only expose our youth to reality of the criminal justice system by showing them the real truth about if they decide to live life as a criminal, what the lifestyle they’d be subject to during incarceration, and what in turn they’d give up for a life of criminal activity vs. iving a lawful life with freedom. The best sentencing model that I feel most correlated with deterrence is indeterminate sentencing. This sentencing structure allows the judge to the best suited punishment based on individual circumstances in which the offender committed a crime. Although legislation does have guidelines for this structure, the guidelines set are in a wide range allowing the judge the most discretion in sentencing the offender.
Due to this sentencing model, the judge is more involved with the offenders case and circumstances, evidence and events of the crime committed, allowing the judge to base punishment and sentencing of the offender he or she feels would be best suited or most beneficial to the offender for future prevention in committing crimes. The deterrence punishment and indeterminate sentencing structure I feel are extremely compatible together because of the amount of discretion the judge has in sentencing or punishment given to the offender.