Introduction
Deterrence is a fundamental concept of criminal justice that ensures crime prevention using the fear of consequences. Specific and general deterrence are two main approaches to the context of actions aimed at maintaining the rules of public order. Delinquent offenders require unique work methods since their psyche is not fully formed. Thus, it is necessary to compare restraint methods to understand which is most suitable for working in the juvenile system.
Comparison of General and Specific Deterrence
Specific deterrence is aimed at influencing the person who is the offender. Preventing further recurrence of criminal behavior is the primary goal of this approach. First, this can be ensured by tightening punitive measures so that the offender understands that they will face a more substantial punishment if they repeat the offense (Motz et al., 2020). Imprisonment and probation are the main types of punishment used in juvenile justice. The theoretical approach that provides the basis for specific deterrence is based on the fear of future punishment (Ariel et al., 2019). This allows this strategy to be used effectively with minors.
General deterrence involves focusing on broader goals to influence potential offenders rather than those who have already committed offenses. This is imperative in conveying to the potential offender that the actions they intend to take may have consequences (Braga et al., 2019). The effect of deterrence in this context is reflected in the fact that a person must be taught to understand that serious offenses can restrict their freedom. This approach includes bringing to the people’s attention an understanding of the responsibility that may fall on them if they commit actions contrary to the criminal code.
Specific and general deterrence have a fundamental difference in the direction of impact. This difference manifests in the direction of the influence carried out in relation to people. The processes that are carried out in these approaches may be effective in different ways depending on what goals are set for the juvenile justice system. General mechanisms are used when restraining people who constitute the category of potential offenders (Braga et al., 2019). Suppose a person previously violated the law and has been convicted. In that case, a specific system must be in place to demonstrate to individuals that the consequences of their actions can significantly limit their freedom in the future, depriving them of the opportunity to choose.
Regarding the effectiveness of both options, it should be said that general deterrence will be more effective for juvenile offenders since it allows people to be influenced in such a way as to prevent the first cases of crimes. However, this technique’s effectiveness may vary depending on many variables determined by the person’s background and current actions (Motz et al., 2020). In this regard, general deterrence must consider the person’s experience to influence the juvenile offender most effectively (Ariel et al., 2019). Representing criminal responsibility and conveying personal responsibility for illegal actions can be more effective than a specific method.
Conclusion
In conclusion, general and specific deterrence are similar approaches that aim to prevent future criminal acts. However, an essential element of difference is their application in different settings. In this way, minors can improve their understanding of the consequences of their actions. General deterrence may be more effective in this aspect as it helps to reinforce the understanding of responsibility and future punishments that will follow when unlawful acts are committed.
References
Ariel, B., Englefield, A., & Denley, J. (2019). I heard it through the grapevine: A randomized controlled trial on the direct and vicarious effects of preventative specific deterrence initiatives in criminal networks. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 109, 819. Web.
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2019). Focused deterrence strategies effects on crime: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3). Web.
Motz, R. T., Barnes, J. C., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Cullen, F. T., Houts, R., Wertz, J. & Moffitt, T. E. (2020). Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins. Criminology, 58(2), 307-335. Web.