In the 1980s and 90s, public perceptions of crime reached a tipping point, as Americans polled cited crime as the most pressing national problem of the day, even compared with issues like the economy (Reske, 1994). Throughout much of the country, and in Canada as well; national, state, and local legislation shifted toward more punitive responses to crime, including policies like mandatory minimum sentencing, expansion of the death penalty, three-strikes laws, zero-tolerance. These policies had their theoretical basis in rational-deterrence theory, which posits that we all are rational beings therefore the most effective way to reduce crime is to use harsh punitive measures as a deterrent disincentive for potential criminals. Perhaps the most
…show more content…
In the sections below, tough-on-crime policies and deterrence theory are described in the context of increasingly punitive laws and enforcement practices in North America, beginning in the 1970s. Next, empirical research is evaluated to determine whether the policies have been effective, and whether any significant indirect or unexpected effects have been documented. The overall effectiveness and accuracy of the underlying theory is then determined. It is concluded that tough-on-crime policies have led to mass incarceration of Americans, and a slight decrease in crime as a result of incapacitation of criminals, rather than deterrence. Deterrence theory and tough-on-crime policies are ultimately invalidated by empirical research, by their reliance on inaccurate beliefs about retribution and crime statistics, and by unsupported assumptions about human …show more content…
According to deterrence theory, therefore; crime will be prevented to the extent that it is severely, swiftly, and consistently punished. Deterrence theory can be contrasted with other contemporary approach to criminal justice, such as the restorative justice movement in Australia and New Zealand, also found in some jurisdictions in the United States (Beale, 2003). In contrast to deterrence theory, restorative justice theories view criminality as fundamentally rooted in environmental factors, such as poverty and lack of education, and therefore seeks to provide social interventions and services such as convict education, a juvenile court system, and job training (Beale, 2003). Restorative and rehabilitative theories are often grounded in efforts to reduce racial and other demographic disparities in criminality, arrests, and sentencing, since they view these disparities as a function of economic inequality and a history of discrimination. In contrast, deterrence theory portrays criminals as rational actors who are less influenced by environmental factors than they are by the severity, celerity, and certainty of punishment (Beale,
In the sections below, tough-on-crime policies and deterrence theory are described in the context of increasingly punitive laws and enforcement practices in North America, beginning in the 1970s. Next, empirical research is evaluated to determine whether the policies have been effective, and whether any significant indirect or unexpected effects have been documented. The overall effectiveness and accuracy of the underlying theory is then determined. It is concluded that tough-on-crime policies have led to mass incarceration of Americans, and a slight decrease in crime as a result of incapacitation of criminals, rather than deterrence. Deterrence theory and tough-on-crime policies are ultimately invalidated by empirical research, by their reliance on inaccurate beliefs about retribution and crime statistics, and by unsupported assumptions about human …show more content…
According to deterrence theory, therefore; crime will be prevented to the extent that it is severely, swiftly, and consistently punished. Deterrence theory can be contrasted with other contemporary approach to criminal justice, such as the restorative justice movement in Australia and New Zealand, also found in some jurisdictions in the United States (Beale, 2003). In contrast to deterrence theory, restorative justice theories view criminality as fundamentally rooted in environmental factors, such as poverty and lack of education, and therefore seeks to provide social interventions and services such as convict education, a juvenile court system, and job training (Beale, 2003). Restorative and rehabilitative theories are often grounded in efforts to reduce racial and other demographic disparities in criminality, arrests, and sentencing, since they view these disparities as a function of economic inequality and a history of discrimination. In contrast, deterrence theory portrays criminals as rational actors who are less influenced by environmental factors than they are by the severity, celerity, and certainty of punishment (Beale,