General deterrence and Specific deterrence at first glance seems like it runs hand and hand. As you look closer and understand it better, you come to the realization that they are two different topics. General deterrence is focused on the legal punishment if you are caught committing a crime. Specific deterrence focuses on punishment of criminals that are apprehended. So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are. General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some.
General deterrence focuses on preventing the crime before it happens. The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me. You would think that could deter criminals from committing that crime. In many it does not. To some people the thought scares and prevents them from committing crime. So criminals weight the possibility of getting away with the crime. Knowing the
…show more content…
Criminals that are apprehended are punished with jail time. Some go to state run jails, federal prison, boot camps, or maximum security prisons. I theory that criminal sanctions should scare criminals straight, and convinced them that they never want to commit a crime again because of jail time. You would think that the loss of freedom, privilege to vote, and ability to enjoy life would scare someone straight. Well it does not, Research has found that prisoner’s in max security prisons has a higher return rate, than prisoner’s in state ran jails. Laws have been passed in places like Florida to deter criminals at committing crimes. Three Strikes law, if they are a habitual offender once they get three strikes they are subject to longer and tougher prison time. Still not enough to deter crime. The question that still remains my critics, and by many citizens is, what is the most effective way to prevent crime and issue