Deterrence Theory1Running head: DETERRENCE THEORY: FOUR BRANCHESDeterrence Theory: Four BranchesJake J. Koppenhaver Criminal Justice CapstoneProfessor ScottJune 24, 2007

Deterrence Theory2Deterrence Theory: Four BranchesThe concept of deterrence is one that all human beings are familiar with. We seeexamples of many types of deterrence at almost all times in our daily lives, everywhere from thegas station where we fill up on fuel, the grocery store we bring our children to, and the bank wewithdrawal our money from. While we may be familiar with the concept, due to the constant bombardment of this deterrence tactic we have surely begun to be desensitized to it. Due to thisconstant exposure we have become forgetful of where deterrence comes from, its purpose, thetactics employed by the sources of deterrence, and how effective it truly is. As it relates to theCriminal Justice system, deterrence goes to great lengths in an attempt to help keep the citizensof our communities—our families—safe, and on many levels it succeeds.Deterrence, as it has become known by the criminal justice system, is not a new concept,and has been used throughout the history of man in various facets. The earliest known exampleof deterrence as it relates to crime and punishment is the Code of Hammurabi. This ancient textwas the first of its kind, a document set forth by a ruling party which categorized crimes andtheir corresponding punishments. This code, carved upon a large stone slab and placed in publicview, was intended to educate members of society on what is expected of their conduct and whatwould happen should they violate those expectations (King, 1998). The Code of Hammurabi alsomade it clear that ignorance of the law is no excuse for its breaking, another step along the pathof crime deterrence.Cesare Beccaria, an eighteenth-century philosopher, was among the first to conductinformation gathering on the correlation between the imposed punishment of crimes andcomplaint behavior of society (Keel, 2005). Beccaria believed that criminal decisions were basedon a few simple factors, being that humans have free will (they have the power to act upon their own accord); humans are rational creatures and able to weigh prospective outcomes of their

Deterrence Theory3actions, seeing which may benefit or detract from the quality of their lives; human decisions are based on the simplest views of man (primarily, pleasure is preferable over pain); finally that anorganized system of laws and punishments which catered to these human traits is necessary tohelp keep society compliant (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2003). As these traits heavily involve humanchoice and rationality, Beccaria’s theories fall into the Rational Choice school of criminal theoryand are closely related to rational choice itself, being that humans are notorious for consideringtheir actions and weighing the pros and cons as it relates to themselves before acting.Beccaria’s studies into deterrence theory waned, and for over a century criminologytheorists focused on the criminal mind instead of preventing the mind from acting. In the early1960’s, a rapidly changing United Stated refreshed the criminal justice community’s view indeterrence. While it has always been in place, interest surfaced once more and governments began to invest more time and effort into acting on these theories. Initially, two forms of deterrence consumed theorists: general, and individual (or specific). Later on, theorists haveadded two more major types of deterrence to the fray, being absolute deterrence and restrictivedeterrence (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2003). All four types of deterrence target various types of potential offenders. One thing to keep in mind is that deterrence is a very difficult concept tomeasure as it produces no solid, tangible primary results. All results seen from deterrent methodsare dependant upon something else (secondary).The concept of general deterrence is the most proactive of all as it seeks to target potential crimes before they happen. This branch of theory is a starting point in the deterrencecontinuum and often targets the crime in general, not the offender. One may ask how a ruledeters a crime instead of a person. I believe that general deterrence does so by issuing blanketknowledge that if one commits a crime then there will be punishment. As first time offenders donot have a criminal history, they could be anyone. General deterrence is the going about of