Required Textbooks And Instructional Materials In Criminolog

Required Textbooks And Instructional Materialscriminology By Schmalle

Classical criminology placed great emphasis on punishment being a deterrent to criminal behavior. Is that the belief of the criminal justice system? Do we punish known offenders to deter them or society from wanting to commit crime? Or is there another purpose for punishment?

Beccaria and Bentham indicated the need for a balance between pleasure and pain. Why not make all crimes punishable by death? Would that not be the ultimate deterrent?

Paper For Above instruction

Classical criminology, a paradigm that emerged in the 18th century, fundamentally posited that punishment serves primarily as a deterrent to criminal behavior. This perspective centered on the belief that individuals rationally weigh the costs and benefits of their actions; thus, if the consequences of crime are sufficiently severe, potential offenders will be dissuaded from engaging in unlawful activities. This foundational idea influenced and remains evident within the modern criminal justice system, which often emphasizes punishment as a means to deter crime. However, it is essential to examine whether deterrence remains the primary purpose of punishment today or if other objectives are equally or more significant.

Historically, classical criminologists such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham championed the notion that the justice system should aim for proportional and swift punishments that create a rational balance between pleasure and pain. Beccaria, in his seminal work "On Crimes and Punishments," argued for the severity of punishment to be proportionate to the crime, emphasizing that arbitrary or excessively harsh punishments could undermine the legitimacy of the justice system and fail to serve their deterrent purpose effectively. Bentham echoed similar sentiments, advocating for the reform of punishment laws to maximize societal happiness by deterring crime while minimizing unnecessary suffering.

The question of whether the criminal justice system primarily functions to deter offenders through punishment remains relevant today. While deterrence is still a goal, contemporary criminal justice policies encompass a broader array of objectives, including rehabilitation, incapacitation, and justice or retribution. The deterrent effect of severe punishments, such as the death penalty, has been extensively studied with mixed results. Although some argue that the death penalty serves as the ultimate deterrent, empirical evidence does not conclusively support this claim. Research indicates that regions with the death penalty do not consistently experience lower crime rates than those without it, suggesting that death sentences are not necessarily more effective deterrents than other punishments.

Making all crimes punishable by death raises significant ethical, legal, and practical concerns. From an ethical standpoint, such a policy contradicts principles of human rights and the value of human life. The risk of wrongful executions, disparities in sentencing, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty exacerbate these concerns. Legally, imposing capital punishment on a broad spectrum of offenses could lead to injustices and violations of constitutional protections. Practically, the immense costs associated with administering the death penalty and the slow judicial processes involved further challenge its viability as a deterrent strategy.

Furthermore, the fear of death may not uniformly deter all individuals, particularly those with mental health issues or desperate circumstances. Diminishing returns in deterrence effectiveness suggest that alternative approaches, such as social reforms, education, and community engagement, may provide more sustainable means of reducing crime rates. These strategies aim to address the root causes of criminal behavior, including poverty, lack of education, and social marginalization, thereby promoting long-term societal well-being rather than merely punishing offenders after the fact.

In conclusion, while classical criminology emphasizes punishment as a deterrent, contemporary understanding recognizes that the criminal justice system pursues multiple objectives. The notion of making all crimes punishable by death to achieve ultimate deterrence is ethically contentious and empirically unsupported. A balanced approach, combining punishment with efforts to prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders, is likely more effective and aligned with contemporary human rights standards.

References

• Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by Henry Paolucci. New York: Free Press, 1963.
• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Cassell, P. G. (2017). Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 324-332.
• Mears, D. P., & Pope, C. (2017). The Status of Deterrence in Contemporary Criminal Justice Policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 39-61.
• Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2016). The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Schmalleger, F. (2020). Criminology. Pearson Publishing.
• Tunnell, K. D. (2016). Crime and the Justice System. Cengage Learning.
• van den Haag, E. (1986). The Death Penalty: For and Against. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
• Wolff, R., & Potter, H. (2017). The Environment of Crime Control. In Crime and Justice in America (pp. 55-78). Routledge.
• Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). The Death Penalty: For and Against. Oxford University Press.