3/5 Notes

Introduction

Discussion on the performative aspects of academic settings and truth-seeking in higher education. The speaker emphasizes the complexities and challenges faced by students and faculty in understanding and interpreting truth in a nuanced manner, acknowledging the varying perspectives and the subjective nature of truth itself.

Guest Presentation: Theories of Time by Hsin-Wen Lee

Overview of Deterrence Theory

Deterrence theory, though currently unpopular among many philosophers who lean towards retributivism or deterministic theories, offers a critical perspective on crime prevention. It centers its focus on future implications of actions rather than solely addressing past crimes, aiming primarily to prevent future offenses through various sanctions.

Key Types of Deterrence

• General Deterrence: This approach aims to deter the broader public by punishing individuals, serving as a warning that criminal behavior leads to consequences.

• Specific Deterrence: This method specifically targets individuals who have committed crimes, aiming to prevent those individuals from reoffending and thus reducing recidivism rates.

• Incapacitation: This involves physically removing criminals from society, typically through incarceration, to prevent them from committing further crimes and protecting the public from harm.

The Logic Behind Deterrence Theory

Deterrence theory operates on the assumption that potential criminals are rational actors who make decisions by weighing the potential consequences of their actions.

Example:

A person considering theft might decide against it due to the fear of imprisonment or other penalties.

Assumptions of Deterrence Theory

• Rationality: It presumes that criminal offenders are capable of rational decision-making, which directly influences their willingness to commit crimes.

• Consequentialism: Punishments are justified by their effectiveness in deterring crime, and if they fail to do so, their legitimacy and utility are called into question.

Challenges in Application of Deterrence Theory

The Minimum Rationality Requirement

One major challenge is ensuring that punishments do not inadvertently encourage further criminal behavior. Poor rehabilitation methods can lead to repeat offenses as individuals return to crime due to lack of support.

Example:

Employment discrimination against individuals with criminal records often forces them back into criminal activity due to a lack of viable opportunities to reintegrate into society.

Who Cannot Be Deterred?

• Non-Rational Offenders: Some individuals lack the capacity to understand the connection between their actions and the consequences that follow, often due to mental health issues.

• Emotionally Driven Offenders: Those who usually rationalize consequences may act impulsively when under emotional distress, such as anger or intoxication, leading to criminal behavior.

• Offenders with False Beliefs: Individuals may disregard deterrent measures if they believe they are acting for a righteous cause or have distorted perceptions of morality.

Example:

Terrorists and other extremists often believe their actions will result in rewards rather than punishment, highlighting the need for addressing and correcting false beliefs for effective deterrence.

• The Desperate Offender: Those who feel they have nothing to lose, such as individuals in extreme poverty, may resort to crime despite understanding the consequences, driven by survival needs.

Institutional Responses

There is a strong advocacy for societal change to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of access to resources, including basic goods and welfare support. Additionally, improved law enforcement practices are suggested to enhance deterrence for rational offenders.

Internal vs. External Sanctions

Traditional Conception of Punishment

Historically, punitive methods have focused predominantly on external sanctions as a primary means to deter crime. Critics express concerns about the oversaturation of punishment, which could lead to more sophisticated and less detectable forms of criminal behavior as criminals adapt to the punitive environment.

Internal Sanction Theory

In contrast, internal sanction theory posits that punishment should work to cultivate an internal moral compass within individuals. This approach encourages voluntary compliance with the law based on virtue and ethics rather than fear of punishment.

Example:

The personal transformation of a former criminal individual who performs a heroic act showcases the potential for internal motives to guide behavior positively, suggesting that moral education may be essential in crime prevention.

Conclusion

The discourse emphasizes the importance of fostering societal resources and moral education as crucial preventive measures. There is a call for addressing the underlying motivations that drive criminal behavior, aiming to align these motivations with virtuous behavior rather than relying solely on punitive deterrence.