Deterrence Theory is based upon several key elements that determine if it will make an effective punishment. Those elements are: proportionality of punishment to the crime, certainty of punishment, celerity of punishment, and equality of punishment across society. This theory is almost essential to the Criminal Justice system itself: simply the fact that a system of punishment exists for criminals deters a crime all on its own. Furthermore, the idea of General Deterrence states that deterrence aimed at society as a whole can affect an entire genre of crime. The theory also asserts that all people can be broken down into three categories of offenders. The acute conformists, citizens who will comply with laws just because it is the “right thing to do;” the incorrigible offenders, who are committed to crime indefinitely and are virtually impossible to deter; and the deterrable offenders, who are scared of punishment and thus persuaded not to commit crimes. Based upon the theory of deterrence, the higher the risk of arrest and the harsher the penalties, the less likely that potential offenders, especially the deterable offenders, will commit a crime.
Looking at this theory specifically in the lens of drug or possession charges, it fits the model of Deterrence almost perfectly.
Proportionality of punishment to the crime is easily covered—drug possession can be a serious crime, but not so serious it requires permanent expulsion from society. Rather, a lengthened sentence in a minimum-security prison would serve as a proportional penalty for breaking a non-violent, but still serious, law.
Certainty of punishment can be enforced through mandatory minimum lengthened sentences for drug offenses. Through the policy of mandatory minimums, offenders can be sure that if they are arrested for any drug offense, there is no opportunity for a plea bargain, or reduced punishment. They will be receiving a harsher penalty across the board.
Celerity of punishment may be slightly more difficult in our Criminal Justice system, but could be enacted through higher bail payments for drug offenders. This way, even if a punishment isn’t served immediately, as the offender waits for trial, they have the fear of spending time in jail awaiting the trial, which would serve as a further deterrent. In order to combat this likelihood of jail time, offenders who spent time in jail before being sentenced would have the option of “time served.” Essentially, their time in jail, if they were found guilty, would count towards their mandatory minimum sentence.
Equality of punishment across society is easily met with mandatory minimum lengthened sentences. As stated before, no matter who the offender is—race, class, or gender—they will still receive the same incarceration sentence. This will reduce inequality in the prison system, as well as deterring any offender before they make the choice to commit a drug offense.
Based on more modern research on Deterrence theory, I can also offer two more options to increase the effectiveness of these mandatory minimum lengthened sentences. First, it is important to note that the threat of punishment, if it is not public knowledge, is virtually useless. Advertising the new guidelines for punishments so that all citizens are aware will increase the effectiveness. Send the new sentencing guidelines to journalists, publish them on government websites, and perhaps even utilize social media to reach even more residents of the state. The more creative the government can be about spreading the word, the more effective the harsher punishments will be. Hopefully, this will deter offenders before they make the mistake one time.
The second option to increase effectiveness would be to market this law within groups that have informal social control in society. Research has found that informal sanctions can be more effect crime suppressant. Families, churches, and schools all play an important part in socializing people for better or for worse. If programs are implemented to deter offenders by influencing them through informal social control, they will have additional societal pressures to resist the urge to commit drug offenses. Programs in schools, such as D.A.R.E, church education on the danger of drugs (and what happens if you are arrested for using drugs), and parental education programs instructing families on how to handle drug education could all be useful resources for deterring offenders. Additionally, if pressure is placed on society to reject this sort of crime through informal sanctions, the offender will be deterred because they have more to lose in their families or other societal groups.
Deterrence theory is supported by multiple scientific studies. The actual or perceived threat of punishment by the state does provide a deterrent effect. Multiple studies have found negative correlations between certainty of punishment and the rate or frequency of offending. Additional data supports the theory in that offenders who were involved in several repeated crimes, but were not punishment had little faith in the certainty of their punishment, and therefore, were likely to reoffend, which illustrates the concept of the Experiential Effect of Deterrence. It affects their perceived certainty of punishment. It is important to mention that with certain crimes, specifically homicide, deterrence theory has been called into question. However, this may relate more to the incorrigible offenders, mentioned above. These offenders will not be swayed from committing crime, so they tend to skew some statistics. However, the goal of deterrence theory is to sway the deterrable offenders: those who can be swayed most effectively by the threat of punishment. The threat of longer, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders is certainly enough to produce the decline in offending that previous research has pointed out.
Follow Us!