|← Civil Disobedience||The Cost of Illegal Drug Use →|
The deterrence theory of crime control derives its impetus from the notion that engaging in criminal activities is a personal choice. Studies have linked the rationality of human beings to their propensity to indulge in crime based on the anticipated positive results. Drug related crimes can therefore be said to be as calculated just like the ones committed without drug influence. Equally, before settling on a crime, the suspect often consider the intrinsic, external and situational factors underlying the probable act. Motivation for the crime (often entails justification), vulnerability of the target, efficiency of the police system and the potential outcomes of the criminal event; both punitive and rewarding must all be in the scheme of the criminal.( Shover, 1996).
The ultimate goal of any justice and police system is to proactive approach towards criminal activities hence entrenching criminal deterrence in the populace. To achieve this, the penalty, speedy police response and predictability of sentencing must be ascertained. It is believed a severe penalty makes crime less enticing. Increasing chances of apprehending suspects also constricts the criminal’s world deterring crime possibility. A third element in deterring crime is the institutionalization of certainty in meting out specific penalties to specific crimes consistently.
In practice, deterrence theory harbor several loopholes as it has been established that the severe the penalty, the less likely that the jury will pass it. Equally, criminals tend to be more dangerous whenever executing crimes with more severe penalties. On certainty, in the United States, less than 50% of all criminal acts are reported to the police, predicting even a lower number for eventual apprehensions. ( Akers, & Sellers, 2008).
It makes much sense to consider persistent thieves to be influenced by the crime-as-choice model. The motivation could stem from the consistent desirable outcome to the thieves. This eventually hardens them with enticing probabilities thereby rooting them into this model.
Based on the exposition, I believe lengthening the jail term for theft offenders under drug influence can considerably reduce this crime. First, longer stay in prison will also allow for rehabilitative process on drug addiction, with the potential of eliminating the impetus for theft. Secondly, it has been grounded that advancement in age leads to a corresponding decrease in a person’s propensity towards crime. Longer sentences for drug related theft offences can considerably reduce this kind of offence.