Deterrent

A focal purpose of Punishment is to -

* deter a convicted offender from similarly reoffending; and

* discourage others from offending in the same manner.

Specific deterrence means discouraging the particular offender from committing more criminal offences.

General deterrence refers to the idea that potential offenders in the community will be discouraged from committing a particular crime when they become aware of the penalty imposed for that kind of offence.

Below are two extracts from Capital Punishment Patently Deters Homicides:

"In June 2007, a paper titled 'The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives' was delivered by David Muhlhausen (Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis) before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate.

That paper provided cogent evidence from a welter of earlier analysis, as well as David Muhlhausen's research findings based on 'multiple data' collection points, that "....capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives":

"In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African-Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African-Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder."

"Plea bargaining

Some research papers have made the case that a murderer was often comfortable with being found guilty of less than 1st degree murder and thereby Sentenced to a lengthy jail sentence, rather than run the risk of contesting a 1st degree murder charge and being found guilty and Sentenced to death. The possibility of a Death Sentence has increased the likelihood of a 'plea bargain', rather than 'run the gauntlet' in a murder trial hearing where if found guilty execution might be Sentenced.

Such patent plea bargaining (pleading guilty to a lesser offence) evidences that a lot of people on a charge of murder would sooner accept a lengthy jail sentence, rather that run the risk in a contested murder trial of being found guilty and thence sentenced to death.

Patently the 'death penalty' is a cogent Deterrent to committing homicide."

Below is a quote from The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a “Judicial Experiment” - July 2003 - Hashem Dezhbakhsh (Emory University) & Joanna M. Shepherd (Clemson University) that used murders data covering the fifty U.S. states during the period 1960-2000:

"The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data’s aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable used to measure executions."

Below is an extract from the Sentencing Advisory Council's paper titled Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence dated April 2011:

"Concluding remarks

The evidence from empirical studies of deterrence suggests that the threat of imprisonment generates a small general deterrent effect. However, the research also indicates that increases in the severity of penalties, such as increasing the length of terms of imprisonment, do not produce a corresponding increase in deterrence.

It has been suggested that harsher penalties do not deter because many crimes are committed in circumstances where it is difficult to identify when, or if, offenders have considered the consequences of their criminal behaviour. In addition, otherwise rational individuals are more strongly influenced by the perceived immediate benefits of committing crime and individuals ‘discount’ the cost of future penalties.

A consistent finding in deterrence research is that increases in the certainty of apprehension and punishment demonstrate a significant deterrent effect. Perceptions about the certainty of apprehension, for example, may counter the ‘present bias’ and reinforce the potential cost of committing crime. This result is qualified by the need for further research that separates deterrable from non-deterrable populations.

Research into specific deterrence shows that imprisonment has, at best, no effect on the rate of reoffending and often results in a greater rate of recidivism. Possible explanations for this include that:

a)        prison is a learning environment for crime,

b)        prison reinforces criminal identity and may diminish or sever social ties that encourage lawful behaviour; and

c)        imprisonment is not the appropriate response to many offenders who require treatment for the underlying causes of their criminality (such as drug, alcohol and mental health issues).

Harsh prison conditions do not generate a greater deterrent effect, and the evidence shows that such conditions may lead to more violent reoffending.

The empirical evidence on the effectiveness of imprisonment as a deterrent to crime suggests that the purposes of sentencing should be considered independently – according to their own merits – and that caution should be exercised if imprisonment is to be justified as a means of deterring all crimes and all kinds of offenders."

Below is an extract from SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO THE VIOLENT OFFENDER - Australian Institute of Criminology - 1989:

"DETERRENCE

One of the fundamental principles on which the criminal justice system is based is that of deterrence. It has become an article of faith that a person's decision to commit an act of violence will depend upon his or her perception of the probability of detection and punishment, the likely severity of that punishment, and, to a lesser extent, the speed with which that punishment will take place."

The possibility of a Death Sentence has increased the likelihood of a 'plea bargain', rather than 'run the gauntlet' in a trial hearing where execution might be Sentenced. Such patent plea bargaining evidences that a lot of people on a charge of murder would sooner accept a lengthy jail sentence, than run the risk in a contested murder trial of being found guilty and thence sentenced to death. Ipso facto, the 'death penalty' and execution are a cogent Deterrent to committing homicide as they have been for hundreds of years.

Seven Purposes Of Sentencing prescribed by the Judicial Conference of Australia - 2014 includes Deterrent, but not Justice for the Innocent Victim or Victims (Retribution)

Below are two extracts from Recidivism/re-offending rates that evidences that jail sentences are not an effective Deterrent to the majority of Australians continuing to commit further criminal offences:

"In Australia overall, 44.8% of prisoners released during 2014-15 returned to prison within two years (to 2016-17)."

"Table C.5 of Report on Government Services 2017 - Volume C: Justice which evidences that -

* 50.7% of inmates in NSW; and

* 58.3% of inmates in N.T,

released in 2013-14 had returned to prison within two years."

Many prisoners in Australia have Mental And Physical Health Issues due to Drug Taking and Needle Sharing and have become 'institutionalised', whereupon these Australians are more comfortable within the regimentations of prisons than 'life on the outside'.

Has society jumped ahead along the punishment/deterrent curve? explores the potent impact illicit drug taking (progressively over the last 30 years) has had on criminal behaviour, whereupon society needs to again revert to sentencing Capital Punishment and Corporal Punishment For Non-Murderous Crimes And For Suitable Male Criminals as the most effective Deterrent to discourage -

* a convicted offender from similarly reoffending; and

* others offending in the same way.

Other inmates are attracted to a warm bed, three meals a day, their own private space and associating with other humans that they can relate to. On 22 Nov 2018, Keith Owen Goodbun pleaded guilty to shooting his wife, Molly Goodbun, aged 59, to death in front of their daughter at the family’s home at Horseshoe Bend in Maitland. Below is an extract from the Newcastle Herald article Keith Owen Goodbun pleads guilty to murdering estranged wife Molly Goodbun at Horseshoe Bend in 2016 on 7 Oct 2016:

"Goodbun had initially planned to murder his wife, kill himself and burn down the Horseshoe Bend property. He had also considered firing his remaining bullets at the first police officers to arrive on scene, but changed his mind when he realised “they’ve got a job to do”.

Besides, Goodbun thought, he would be quite happy to go to jail.

“I can go to jail for 30 f---ing years and get a bed and breakfast every day,” Goodbun told detectives during his police interview. “I know where I’m going. And I’m quite f---ing happy about it, I tell you, quite happy about it.”

In sentencing Keith Goodbun, 62, to at least 31 year's jail, Justice Helen Wilson said Goodbun committed a premeditated, cruel and deeply shocking crime, "motivated by deep anger".

Anyone that does not believe -

A. that a Sentence of Flogging as Punishment for committing a Level 6 to Level 2 criminal offence (listed under 'Sample Offences' in Penalty Scale at the tail of Swift, Frightening and Painful Dose of Corporal Punishment) is not a materially more sever Deterrent than a Sentence of incarceration in an Australian State or Territory jail; or

B. that crime rates in three adjacent members of the Commonwealth of Nations in South-East Asia are not materially lower than Australia,

should read some of the files (or view a few of the videos) in Corporal Punishment in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, in particular the -

(a) efforts that London-born, Ye Ming Yuen, and American teenager, Michael Fay, separately pursued under the appeals process to have their Sentences of canings reduced; or

(b) the account by Robert Symes who received six strokes of the rattan in 1982 at Butterworth prison, Malaysia.

Other Commonwealth of Nations countries in South-East Asia successfully deter criminal activity

Below is an extract from Caning in Singapore a country which has an exceeding low crime rate because Punishment for crimes less than Murder of Drug Trafficking (for males aged up to 50 years) is whipping across the bare buttocks with a flexible cane, known as the Rattan, that is swiftly administered, frightening, painful and with a 'low economic cost' to the taxpayer:

"Caning is a widely used form of legal corporal punishment in Singapore. It can be divided into several contexts: judicial, prison, reformatory, military, school, and domestic or private. These practices of caning are largely a legacy of, and are influenced by, British colonial rule in Singapore.[1] Similar forms of corporal punishment are also used in some other former British colonies, including two of Singapore's neighbouring countries, Malaysia and Brunei.

Of these, judicial caning, for which Singapore is best known, is the most severe. It is reserved for male convicts under the age of 50, for a wide range of offences under the Criminal Procedure Code, and is also used as a disciplinary measure in prisons. Caning is also a legal form of punishment for delinquent servicemen in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and is conducted in the SAF Detention Barracks. Caning is also used as an official punishment in reform schools.

In a milder form, caning is used to punish male students in primary and secondary schools for serious misbehaviour. The government encourages this but does not allow caning for female students, who instead receive alternative forms of punishment such as detention.

A much smaller cane or other implement is also used by some parents to punish their children for misbehaving. This is allowed in Singapore but "not encouraged by the government". However, the government mentioned that it considers "the judicious application of corporal punishment in the best interest of the child."[2]"

Malaysia and Singapore - two adjacent and closely linked members of the Commonwealth of Nations in South-East Asia have materially lower crime rates per capita p.a. than Australia, the UK, Brazil and Canada, that no longer carry out the death penalty.

The prospect of a convicted murderer being flogged with -

(a) 3 lashes of the Cat 'O Nine Tails liberally struck upon the bare back above the kidneys; and

(b) 3 canings of an Australian Rattan liberally struck upon the bare buttocks below the kidneys,

(6 lashes in toto), and seven days later hung by the neck until dead, would materially increase the Detrimental effect upon others similarly inclined from performing a vicious murder.

Explained in 1st Poll Vote.

"One of the strongest arguments for the death penalty is based on the concept of deterrence of crime. The deterrence theory is based on the understanding that criminals are deterred if the consequences of a crime outweigh the benefits. Researchers claim that humans are basically aware of the differences between rights and wrong and as such the commission of crime is a free choice involving choices based on consequences of actions. As such, the proponents argue that death penalty is an effective deterrence to criminals contemplating committing a capital offense. These analysts argue hat the death penalty creates fear in the mind of potential offenders given the harsh punishment."

Below are three paragraphs extracted from Arguments For The Death Penalty - UK Essays

"One of the strongest arguments for the death penalty is based on the concept of deterrence of crime. The deterrence theory is based on the understanding that criminals are deterred if the consequences of a crime outweigh the benefits. Researchers claim that humans are basically aware of the differences between rights and wrong and as such the commission of crime is a free choice involving choices based on consequences of actions. As such, the proponents argue that death penalty is an effective deterrence to criminals contemplating committing a capital offense. These analysts argue hat the death penalty creates fear in the mind of potential offenders given the harsh punishment.

The other argument for death penalty is based on the understanding that it eliminates villains and habitual killers from the society who would otherwise continue to harass people. The proponents argue that when a criminal is executed he no longer poses any threat. This follows the logical argument that the execution of killers and other radical offenders would contribute to safer societies, Banner (2002, p.60).

The third argument for the death punishment is based on the cost implications. The proponents of the death penalty argue that confining criminals to prisons and rehabilitation centers involves expenditure of taxpayers' money. The costs of death penalty are paltry compared with the enormous expenditure of public funds and the general impact of release of such people to the societies. There are arguments that the criminals released may lead to panic and fear in the society or the recruitment of other criminals which may not be necessarily quantifiable in terms of costs, David (2006, p.50). As such, the proponents argue that the death penalty for killers is less costly than other punishments by all considerations."