Punishment and Crime Deterrence

This assignment critically examines the relationship between punishment and crime deterrence. It argues that while punishment is often seen as a solution to crime, practical evidence suggests it may not be the most effective method. The essay explores the various justifications for punishment – deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation – and analyzes their effectiveness in reducing criminal behavior. Ultimately, the assignment proposes alternative approaches to crime prevention, emphasizing education and societal reform over solely relying on punitive measures.

CRIME

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The only way to stop crime is to increase punishments..............................................................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................2

The only way to stop crime is to increase punishments
From a practical perspective, it is believed that rising punishments are not evident to stop
crime. This is on considering the fact of a stabilized crime rate, instead of declining as per the
expectations. Herein, the punishments are dispensed for 3 vital causes namely deterrence,
retributivism and incapacitation (Hoeve, Machteld, and Peter, 2016). Each of it exists with a
distinct motive of averting the wrongdoings. Firstly, deterrence, this seeks to prevent any future
offence. Another is retributivism that is linked with that to the ideas of justice. In which, the
crime must be encountered with a suitable punishment (Glenn, Andrea and Adrian, 2014).
Lastly, the concept of incapacitation is based on the idea of protecting the society from the
offenders, at a large scale.
The current essay is determined to find out whether an increasing rate of punishments is
apparent to stop the crime or there exists some alternative for the same. It is with a main agenda
of reducing the rate of crime to a great extent (Meier, Stephan, Lamar, Antonino, and Barbara,
2016). Although, if the existence of punishment is refereed from justice point of view, then
punishment stands to be a correct solution to stop lawbreaking. Whereas, on considering the
practical outlook of punishment, it has not always proven to be the most effective way for
stopping crime (Marie, Cheryl, and Anthony, 2015). As a result, to which, it has led to an
argumentative statement with a conclusion of bringing up right solution for stopping crimes. It
should be done not only by considering to increase the penalties and where the right solutions
should be based on a more reformed approach of educating the delinquents (Reiman, Jeffrey, and
Paul, 2015). Along with which, the general public must be together enlightened for the sake of
creating an improved culture in the future.
1

REFERENCES
Glenn, Andrea L., and Adrian Raine. "Neurocriminology: implications for the punishment,
prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour." Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15, no. 1
(2014): 54.
Hoeve, Machteld, and Peter H. van der Laan. Persisters and desisters in crime from adolescence
into adulthood: Explanation, prevention and punishment. Routledge, 2016.
Marie Webster, Cheryl, and Anthony N. Doob. "US punitiveness ‘Canadian style’? Cultural
values and Canadian punishment policy." Punishment & Society 17, no. 3 (2015): 299-321.
Meier, Stephan, Lamar Pierce, Antonino Vaccaro, and Barbara La Cara. "Trust and in-group
favoritism in a culture of crime." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 132
(2016): 78-92.
Reiman, Jeffrey, and Paul Leighton. The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class,
and criminal justice. Routledge, 2015.
2