Student Post Respond Discussion

Student Post Respond DiscussionThe student must then post replies of at least 500 words each to another student post.For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 2 scholarly citations in current APA format.Each reply must incorporate at least 2 scholarly citations in current APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years.Acceptable sources include the textbooks (readings provided), and the Bible.NOTE: *The Bible context must be included and all attached material also in the discussion board and referenced.Read all attached items to respond to student post.DUE: by 11:59 a.m May 31, 2021.NO LATE WORK!
STUDENT POST 1Kescia HolmesDeterrence Theory Pros/ConsTop of FormThe theory of deterrence can be connected to jurisprudence’s sociological school (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). The sociological faculty establishes a relationship between society and law. It states regulation to be a social phenomenon with a direct and oblique connection to the community. One of the main targets of the deterrence principle is to create an example for the individuals inside the society via growing worry of punishment (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).Deterrence theory is defined as the method of persuading others who might be willing to offend not to achieve this. The deterrence principle has its pros and cons. The professionals are the blessings that it could lessen crime charge notably and sharply. An example of this is a three-strikes coverage in most states which means that if a person has already been in prison instances and if this character commits the 3rd crime, they might mechanically be sentenced for 25 years no matter the crime. The con is that criminals usually think they may not be arrested, so they continue committing crimes (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).Critics of deterrence theory factor to high recidivism costs as evidence that the concept does no longer works. Recidivism a way to relapse into crime. In different phrases, individuals who are punished with the aid of the crook justice machine tend to re-offend at a high fee. Some critics also argue that the rational desire idea does no longer paintings. They say that such things as crimes of ardor and crimes dedicated by way of those beneath the impact of medicine and alcohol aren’t fabricated from the rational fee-advantage analysis (Cullen& Jonson, 2017). Now let’s discuss the pros and cons more specifically.ProsIn discussing the pros of deterrence theory, this student would like to discuss focused deterrence theory. The focused-deterrence strategy originated in a trouble-oriented policing initiative to address teens-gang gun violence in Boston within the past Nineteen Nineties. Since then, dozens of jurisdictions inside the United States have followed and adapted the model (Scott, 2021).The focused deterrence technique stems from the deterrence principle of crime, which asserts that people are discouraged from committing crimes if they accept as accurate with they’re possible to be stuck and punished certainly, critically, and unexpectedly (Scott, 2021). These three punishment elements theoretically paintings exceptional in concert: if anybody of the elements is susceptible, the threat of punishment is faded, and the individual is less deterred from committing the crime. Specific deterrence refers to times while the man or woman punished is discouraged from offending again. General deterrence is when other human beings become aware of an individual’s punishment and are prevented from committing similar offenses. FDIs purpose often to deter excessive-chance offenders from re-offending; however, if well-publicized to offenders’ associates and the broader public, general deterrence can occur as well (Scott, 2021).The police position in deterring crime lies basically with the first detail certainty. By law, police aren’t supposed to affect the severity of punishment, at least no longer a reliable punishment meted out under the criminal regulation: for the top part, that is left to legislatures, prosecutors, and judges to decide (Scott, 2021). Nor do police have a lot say within the swiftness of punishment: that lies mainly within the arms of the courts. Much of conventional police images are designed to boom the likelihood that those engaged in criminal activities are stuck and brought to the courtroom. Police patrols, speedy reaction to crimes in progress, and criminal investigations are all meant to boost the probabilities that criminals could be arrested (Scott, 2021).ConsThis incapacity to make punishments effective is one hindrance to achieving significant deterrent consequences, although attempting to put this principle into exercise. The other difficulty is that of personal differences (Scott, 2021). Not everyone studies the danger of disciplinary punishment in the same manner. In specific, some individuals are mindful of the consequences, but others do now not—or at least no longer as a whole lot. Some human beings are thoughtless, short-sighted, under the influence of alcohol, impact of peer influence; regrettably, these human beings tend to be offenders (Scott, 2021)! They aren’t good at paying attention to destiny outcomes. But listening to future consequences is essential if someone is deterred by using the chance or maybe the imposition of criminal punishment. Scaring criminal’s straight is consequently a challenging task to accomplish.Deterrence is usually related to imposing more punishment on offenders. This is, it’s far justified by using the claim that we’ve got high crime and recidivism costs. Reducing crime must involve getting difficult (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Conservative politicians have commonly embraced this rhetoric. They have argued that we have to make crime no longer pay by imposing various legal guidelines that boost crime costs (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Regardless of the knowledge of those tactics, it needs to be realized that deterrence is not inherently a conservative principle. That is, it does now not necessarily cause a justification of harsh correctional guidelines (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).Biblical PerspectiveIn Leviticus 19:15, the Bible reminds us; Do not pervert justice; do now not show prejudice to the poor or favoritism to the superb, but judge your neighbor pretty (Leviticus 19:15, New International Version). The scripture tells us that all individuals should be treated the same. Allowing deterrence theory in the criminal justice system allows everyone to be aware of the steps to deter crime.ConclusionIt is easy to expect that everyone knows the dangers of being caught and punished if they commit crimes, and to count on that, they worry about outcomes. In most groups, the fact is that instead, few human beings are caught for each crime they dedicate. Even when human beings are stuck, the punishments they endure are often some distance less excessive or hastily administered than might be predicted. The overall threat of punishment from routine policing and prosecution is exceedingly vulnerable (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Most criminal offenders who go through the justice system realize this better than maximum human beings. Thus, even though prolific offenders realize that their odds of having stuck and punished over the years are almost inevitable, their odds for any precise crime they dedicate are as an alternative low (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).Bottom of Form