Philosophy of Punishment: Deterrence General and Specific
Philosophy of Punishment: Deterrence General and Specific
Sentencing Model: Indeterminate Sentencing
For the philosophy of punishment I chose deterrence, specifically because of the goals and benefit this philosophy. The deterrence punishment is divided in to two separate categories. First on is the general deterrence, the goal of general deterrence is to prevent non-offenders (those who’ve not committed a crime) from committing crimes by exposing non-offenders to the reality of the punishment that they would possibly be given if indeed they committed a crime. 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. 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
Sentencing Model: Indeterminate Sentencing
For the philosophy of punishment I chose deterrence, specifically because of the goals and benefit this philosophy. The deterrence punishment is divided in to two separate categories. First on is the general deterrence, the goal of general deterrence is to prevent non-offenders (those who’ve not committed a crime) from committing crimes by exposing non-offenders to the reality of the punishment that they would possibly be given if indeed they committed a crime. 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. 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