Impact of Sentencing Philosophies and Models on Corrections
The American criminal justice system exists in both federal and state governments and all jurisdictions. Its jails and prisons house inmates, some of whom eventually return to society, while others never experience freedom after they get incarcerated. As Mackenzie (2001) points out, US sentencing systems adhere to specific guidelines, but can also be affected by discretions of presiding judges. Moreover, during their periods of imprisonment, prisoners are often subjected to influences and the effects of correctional philosophies and policies. Changing correctional philosophies over the last 50 years has had a significant impact on crime rates in the country.
Deterrence Correctional philosophy
Deterrence philosophy stands for the idea that people always search for pleasure and avoid pain as much as possible. As Donohue & Wolfers (2006) further point out, the philosophy bases on the belief that pain and making a choice painful enough would motivate people not to engage in criminal behavior. There are two types of deterrence behavior: general and specific deterrence. In essence, the philosophy argues that crime can be prevented by appealing to a person’s sense of honor and personal respect. The former entails an instance where a potential offender considers the potential benefit of engaging in criminal activity but gets deterred from it by observing the outcome from another prisoner’s experience. On the other hand, specific deterrence occurs when the offender assesses and evaluates that the cost of punishment incurred would at least equal to the benefit of conducting the crime. The theory bases on the assumption that offenders are rational people who can consider the consequences of their actions, and that criminal punishment is a means of deterring crime, Lee (2017).
Why Deterrence Philosophy Has a Great Impact on Corrections
While this philosophy has not eliminated crime entirely, there is proof that deterrence philosophy has impacted corrections significantly. As Lee (2017) points out, deterrence philosophy has proven that punishment is not often the best way of stopping or reducing crime. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “…research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates.” This has shed light, on the fact that there is no proof, for instance, that the death penalty deters criminals from capital offenses like murder.
In a journal titled “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century,” Nagin (2013) points out that sending offenders to prison for crimes committed is a complicated and ineffective way of combating crime. In understanding the relationship between deterrence and crime, the author asserts that increasing sentencing does little to combat crime. The author also contends that in understanding punishment and deterrence of crime, certain concepts need to be considered carefully. This may entail: understanding that people grow out of criminal activities as they age and that prisons can foster recidivism.
Conclusion
Evidence has indicated that deterrence philosophy has been unsuccessful in reducing crime, and only pleases community members to see retribution for crimes. Moreover, there is no effect to show that deterrent behavior increases when the likelihood of conviction rises. Basing on this information, it is clear that the deterrence approach should not be used, as it does not affect crime rates.
References
Mackenzie, D. (2001). Corrections and sentencing in the 21st Century: Evidence-Based
Corrections and Sentencing. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 299-312. Doi: 10.1177/0032885501081003001
Donohue, J., & Wolfers, J. (2006). The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence. The
Economists’ Voice, 3(5). Doi: 10.2202/1553-3832.1170
Lee, H. (2017). Taking Deterrence Seriously: The Wide-Scope Deterrence Theory of
Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics, 36(1), 2-24. Doi: 10.1080/0731129x.2017.1298879
Nagin, D. (2013). Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199-263.
Doi: 10.1086/670398