Posted: April 26th, 2022

A Literature Review on the Deterrence Theory

A Literature Review on the Deterrence Theory
Assignment Instructions:
This assignment serves as a building block for your final thesis proposal. For this literature review, you need to select a substantive theory, either something that we discussed in the lesson, or something outside of the course, and focus your literature review around that theory. Your theory selection should make sense with the research question you intend to assess within your final research proposal. Since this is a literature review focused on a particular topic (i.e. the substantive theory) you will need to discuss the current state of the literature specific to that theory (for example, deterrence theory, social identity theory, and etc). You’ll want to start with a discussion on the early conceptualizations of the theory and how it has developed overtime. your conclusion should include a discussion on where the research on that theory needs to go next. What are some questions that remain? What new ways should it be applied?
Format: Standard academic format will suffice: 1-inch borders on all four sides, double spaced, with times new roman 12-point font. As with all academic assignments (unless otherwise specified) you must include a references section and list your references.
This literature review should include a critical review of at least 9-10 scholarly/peer-reviewed articles.
Since multiple writing styles are in use within this course, on your title page, please note which style you are using within your assignment. This will help me cater my comments to the style you are using. The style you use needs to be the one that is used within your program of study.
Total pages: 5 complete pages in length not including title page, or references.
I have also attached a synthesis matrix that should help you organize your notes as you go, as well as the grading rubric for this assignment.
Use the filename (no spaces): yourlastnameW4.doc to upload this file to the HW4 assignment.
As you proofread your assignment I encourage you to work with Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2009. “Editing Your Sentences” In Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Sage. This resource has a nice step by step process for enhancing your writing.
Note: As mentioned above this assignment is a building-block for your final assignment. In your research proposal in addition to synthesizing the literature on a theory, you will also need to synthesize the literature surrounding your topic you are looking to explore as well. This will serve as a preliminary literature review that helps to demonstrate the importance of the topic and show that it has not yet been addressed within the literature
Introduction
Deterrence is a very old idea that has been discussed on numerous occasions in different academic journals, and the concept was popularized by scholars such as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. Deterrence theory is embedded on three key concepts that people respond to changes based on the immediacy, certainty and severity of punishment. Morgan (2017) indicates that the proponents of this theory have always suggested that individuals choose to violate or obey the law after evaluating the consequences or gains associated with their actions. Morgan (2017) adds that deterrence theory is characterized as either general or specific, where general deterrence argues that individuals are likely to evaluate their actions based on the threat of being punished while specific deterrence suggests that individuals tend to respond to punishment after having an experience about it.
Traditional Research on Deterrence Theory
The earliest idea about the deterrence theory was first advanced by Thomas Hobbes, who believed that men were neither bad nor good. Instead, Hobbes assumed that men tend to be creatures of their violations that desire specific things and fight when these desires conflict (Morgan, 2019). According to Hobbes, individuals are only interested in pursuing their self-interests like personal safety, material gains or social reputation while making enemies without being concerned about whether they are harming other people in the process. Under this kind of environment where individuals are only pursuing their self-interests, Hobbes argues that there is a need for the existence of governments that would enhance safety and maintain order.
Hobbes further argued that humans are wise or rational enough to establish that the self-interested nature of individuals can result in inevitable conflict or crime because some people feel alienated or excluded from society (Morgan, 2019). As such, through a social contract, individuals can agree to forego their egos as long as everybody does their things appropriately. These social contracts are what prevent people from engaging in crime or conflict because the government is available to protect them from potential conflict (Morgan, 2019). However, although there is an authority to safeguard these social contracts and resolve any conflicts, crimes still take place as such Hobbes suggested that any crime should be met with punishment that by far greater than any benefit associated with committing it. In other words, these punishments exist as deterrence to potential crimes because the consequences associated with it outweigh the benefits.
Hobbes’s ideas were advanced further by social contract philosopher Cesare Beccaria who challenged the government’s right to punish crimes. Beccaria advanced the idea that laws should only be judged based on their ability to provide the greatest happiness that has to be shared by the majority of the people. According to Beccaria, since individuals tend to be rationally self-interested, they are unlikely to engage in crime when they know that the cost associated with their actions is more expensive than the benefits (Stafford, 2015). However, Beccaria was concerned with the severity of the punishment used as deterrence to crime, noting that excessive punishment was unlikely to reduce crime but increase it.
Other classical theorists have also agreed with Beccaria’s position by suggesting that humans tend to be rational with the free will and ability to govern with decisions. Based on this understanding, the law was established to govern and give an outline of what is punishable and the extent or severity of punishment for each type of crime (Stafford, 2015). This approach is meant to prevent excessive punishment, such as torture or secret accusations. As such, the idea of capital punishment was abolished, and Beccaria proposed imprisonment in its place. However, Beccaria was very keen to note that a given punishment can only have a high deterrence value if it propionate to the type of crime committed.
A more modern approach to Beccaria’s ideas on the deterrence theory was advanced by Jeremy Bentham, who proposed the principle of utility. According to Bentham, through nature, humans are governed by pain or pleasure, where morality bleeds pleasure by promoting the greatest happiness to a majority of the people, which is a similar approach to Beccaria’s ideology on deterrence (Stafford, 2015). As such, Bentham argued that the state has to promote a society’s happiness by either rewarding or punishing specific actions. Like the scholars before him, Bentham was concerned with the random imposition of punishment. According to him, all punishment should be considered evil unless they are used to prevent a greater evil or control an offender’s action. In other words, Bentham’s idea about the deterrence theory was that the law aims to increase people’s happiness by enhancing pleasure while lessening the pain experienced by the community (Stafford, 2015). As such, excessive punishment that is beyond what is necessary to deter people from law violations should be considered unjustified.
Modern Research on Deterrence Theory
According to Quackenbush and Zagare (2016), deterrence theory remains a key intellectual underpinning of the Western criminal law and justice system. Quackenbush and Zagare (2016) add that today, the notion that sanctions can deter criminals has been the basis of penal sanctions undertaken in death penalty cases, as well as other sectors of criminal sentencing. Proponents of this theory have often advocated for policies like the three strikes legislation, increased prisons, development of more prisons and establishment of longer and more severe punishments as well as the hiring of more law enforcers (Zagare, 2019). Once these policies are applied together, they are meant to control or reduce the rate of recidivism among convicted offenders while preventing future offenders from engaging in a potential crime.
According to Cornwell (2018), although the deterrence argument has a lot of merits, criminologists have not paid a lot of attention to this theory. As such, there has been scanty research and tests for this theory. Cornwell (2018) adds that before the 1960s, most studies about the deterrence theory mainly focused on the philosophical ideologies, its punishment implications and human orientation. For instance, according to criminologist Charles Tittle’s research in 1968, the tests on the theory concluded that it was possible to deter homicide based on the severity and certainty of a given punishment (Cornwell, 2018). Tittles’ research suggested that the certainty associated with imprisonment acted as deterrence to the crime. Still, severity only acted as deterrence if the certainty of this punishment has been reasonably guaranteed. Other studies like Ellis (2019) have also questioned the validity of earlier empirical findings, with most of them arguing that police records variations could be responsible for the outcome associated with certainty.
In regards to the swiftness of punishment, current and future studies have avoided the inclusion of immediacy as a deterrence measurement. A lot of the empirical analysis associated with deterrence focuses on capital punishment as a deterrence to potential offenders from participating or involving themselves in acts that lead to a homicide. However, according to Johnson (2019), empirical results from death penalty studies concluded that the death penalty is not an effective deterrence of severe crime such as murder.
Conclusion
In conclusion, numerous studies and scholars are in support of the deterrence theory. Although this support appeared to have waned, the past decade has seen an increase in the interest in this theory. However, the research demonstrates that modern criminal justice policies focus more on the severity associated with the punishment instead of its certainty. Some criminologists like Hobbes have suggested that crime should be met with punishment that by far greater than any benefit associated with committing it. In other words, these punishments exist as deterrence to potential crimes because the consequences associated with it outweigh the benefits. These sentiments were supported by Beccaria, who was very keen to note that a given punishment can only have a high deterrence value if it propionate to the type of crime committed. However, people like Bentham have argued that excessive punishment that is beyond what is necessary to deter people from law violations should be considered unjustified. These ideas are supported by Johnson (2019) who is against excessive punishment and has even done empirical research suggesting that excessive punishments like the death penalty are not an effective deterrence of severe crime such as murder.

References
Cornwell, D. J. (2018). Criminal deterrence theory: The history, myths & realities.
Eassey, J. M., & Boman, J. H. (2015). Deterrence theory. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, 1-6. doi:10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx115
Ellis, A. (2019). A deterrence theory of punishment. Deterrence, 139-153. doi:10.4324/9781315258089-4
Johnson, B. (2019). Do criminal laws deter crime?: Deterrence theory in criminal justice policy : A primer.
Morgan, P. M. (2017). The concept of deterrence and deterrence theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.572
Morgan, P. M. (2019). The past and future of deterrence theory. Cross-Domain Deterrence, 50-65. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190908645.003.0003
Quackenbush, S. L., & Zagare, F. C. (2016). Modern deterrence theory. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.39
Stafford, M. C. (2015). Deterrence theory: Crime. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 255-259. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.45005-1
Stafford, M., & Goodrum, S. (2001). Deterrence theory: Crime. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 3550-3553. doi:10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/00365-x
Zagare, F. C. (2019). Perfect deterrence theory. Game Theory, Diplomatic History and Security Studies, 127-144. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198831587.003.0008

Order | Check Discount

Tags: best dissertation writing services, best research paper writing services, college paper writing service, dissertation writing services cost, dissertation writing services near me