The effect of specific punishments on criminal behavior is the subject of intensive debate. The overcrowding of prisons in the United States is but one indication that the best way to deter criminal behavior has yet to be found.
Evidence from centuries past indicates prisons with the highest degree of deplorable and inhumane conditions were not a sufficient deterrent to prevent crime. The effects of traditional retribution in the biblical form of an eye for a eye are unable to show results.
Modern monetary retribution is usually part of a packaged sentence which may include fines, probation and/or imprisonment. Therefore the specific effects of monetary retribution appear to be negligible at best and very difficult to isolate the effects of. The degree in which the threat of punishment is a deterrent is a matter of theory only as there cannot be a comparison with the effects of the opposite extreme of a zero threat.
The deterrent effects of punishment are variable according to previous experiences such as previous criminal history, certainty levels of punishment, and criminality self-perception. Research done by Pogarsky in 2006 used subjects that were convicted offenders in a highly supervised program in New Jersey. The research resulted in the conclusion that more research is needed.
There is an enormous amount of research on the subject of deterrents and effectiveness. Research and theories contradict each other much more often than they validate earlier results. Sitren and Applegate conducted research assessing college students and the likelihood of individuals cheating on exams.
The research results indicated the strong impact of a student who either personally experienced punishment avoidance or knew of others who had previously gotten away with cheating in the potential decision to cheat on an exam. The single positive factor identified in this research - social support was indicative of higher moral standards and resistance to the temptation of cheating. Once again, the conclusion was reached that results are inconsistent and indicates a need for further study.
The level of certainty that a criminal act will result in some form of punishment appears to be a deterrent within a narrow range. Research done by Yu and Liska contain results of specific levels of certainty affect criminal behavior. This research indicates a specific level of belief being a crime deterrent within a narrow range known as a tipping point. The report indicates certainty levels above and below the tipping point show little to no effect. Furthermore; the results of this research contain race and population size variables which also affect the certainty of punishment levels.
An innovative program introduced in a prison in Texas in 1997 showed dramatic results in regards to lowered recidivism. Texas was the first state to fund the faith based program known as the Innerchange Freedom Initiative. This brought on a firestorm of interference arguing the funding of a faith based program violated the separation of church and state.
Nevertheless; a report published in 2003 by the state of Texas showed impressive results. The group of inmates who completed the program had only an 8% recidivism rate. Other groups made up of inmates who had not completed the program but at the minimum had been eligible for it had recidivism rates varying from 19% to 22% after two years.
The majority of previous research on the efficacy of punishment as a deterrent do not assess the affect punishment has on the intent of the offender in regards to criminal behavior.
Many studies examine high school and college level students and focus on relatively minor offenses such as cheating and truancy.
Race is again indicated as a factor in numerous studies. Recent research determined that male and Black offenders are more likely than female and white offenders to opt for prison in lieu of alternative community-based programs. Given a choice, these offenders would rather just put the prison time in instead of dealing with restrictive constraints and hostile parole/probation officers.
Of the group of incarcerated offenders used for this study, 81% had previously experienced alternative sanctions. The constant contact of offenders with other offenders during incarceration coupled with social and non-social reinforcements increase the likelihood of offenders to re-offend. The conclusion of this research indicates there a wide variety of factors influencing recidivism.
The programs that appear to work are rehabilitative in nature. Shrum states the success rate is dependent on a variety factors including the likelihood of the participant to willing accept responsibility, education and the patience and understanding of the program director in dealing with the participants themselves, prison authorities and prospective employers.
The program Shrum advocates in particular includes a method of therapy referred to the Intensive Journal, a self-exploration tool by which participants are enabled to deal with underlying causes of deviant behavior.
Criminal behavior is subjected to an extreme set of variables within the psychological profile of the offender and environmental influences. Social morality may be the single most important factor in crime deterrence. From infancy on, patterns are set for acceptable behavior and punishments.
The mercurial period of young adulthood when individuals are subjected to the highest degree of peer pressure is a critical time for preventative measures. The teen years are often a crucial time for forming relationships and attitudes that are likely to be lifelong and are when the boundaries of the adult conscience are set. It is during this critical time that the roots of criminal behavior either die out or are fed and watered for future growth. Therefore the greatest deterrent to criminal behavior is the rejection of these behaviors by the peer group of the individual.
Once criminal behaviors are established there is no evidence suggesting that imprisonment has a significant effect on crime. Indeed, the United States correctional system is an ideal example of what does not work to deter crime. After more than 30 years of increasing imprisonment rates, the U.S. has the highest worldwide incarceration rate. There are volumes of research indicate the recidivism rates for offenders is actually increased after incarceration. Effective rehabilitation programs show a benefit to participants in lowered recidivism rates and increased chances to live successful lives.
The benefits to society from effective rehabilitation programs include more cost effective methods than imprisonment alternatives and less likelihood of the children of offenders following in the parent's footsteps after rehabilitation. It seems clear; the effect of punishment on criminal behavior is negligible at best. Intervention and rehabilitation offer the best solutions at the earliest signs of criminal tendencies.