Dynamics Of Crime And Delinquency

General deterrence states that the punishing offenders warn the rest of the population from engaging in the same crime. General deterrence is meant to make people aware of the horrors and sanctions thus scaring them from committing crimes. Since the general deterrence was meant to deter those, who witness the infliction of pain on the criminal, corporal punishments, were traditionally carried out in public so that it could scare off people from repeating such crime (Hugh and Scott, 2010). Specific deterrence on the other side is designed to deter only the individual offender from repeating the same crime. Proponents of specific deterrence hold that severe punishment will deter the offender from committing a similar crime in the future. A student severely punished for bullying a fellow student is likely not to repeat the same act in the future.
Deterrence theories are good examples of correctional measures that are helpful in solving criminal acts in our schools. However, not all crimes are easy to solve because some are more complex than others. Additionally, not all the crimes attract similar penalties. An important factor that hinders the application of deterrence in our schools is the individual differences among the students. Not all students experience the threat of a correctional punishment. Some students, for instance, are short sited, more impulsive, inebriated, or are under the peer influence and they, therefore, tend to repeat the same crimes. Some crimes are easy to deter than others, and some people easily respond positively to deterrence than others. For instance, in schools, it is easier to deter bullying than to curb drug and substance abuse because drugs become a habit, and individual students are likely to become addicted. Additionally, deterrence may not apply to some people because of their personalities and their emotional response (Barlow &amp. Kauzlarich, 2010).

You Might Also Like