| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,700,000)
Fiscal Year 1987: ¥900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000)
Fiscal Year 1986: ¥300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥300,000)
Fiscal Year 1985: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Out of the recent trends on general prevention theory, this paper has examined first the theories of the positive general prevention in West Germany. According to Jakobs, the function of punishment is to maintain social norm which aims to make social contact possible, and punishment is considered the training ofrecognition of norm, namely, the training of reliance on norm, allegiance to law, resignation to result. This depends on Luhmann's social system theory. In short, the main function of criminal law system is to counterfactually maintain the disappointed normative expectations, and to strengthen the allegiance to law at the expense of norm infringers, by which the whole system can be stabilized. Hassemer's theory features the deep indwelling of the limited conception of behavioral retribution. The merits of the positive general prevention theory are the easy insert in the whole conception of social control and the defense of legally protected interest by the conviction of those wh
… More
o admit law as right. However, this theory lays emphasis on the normative standpoint, that is, on the normative expectations, so that it is open to criticism because of making a wider application of criminal law. Luhmann thinks of the world as only complexity, and therefore cannot necessarily grasp the real society properly. Like threat prevention, to strengthen the normative consciousness of the other people, criminals are apt to be considered tools which produce social or personal profits. It is blamable that Jakobs takes behavioral valuelessness theory. Hassemer's behavioral retribution is doubtful as well. It is partly because criminal acts are not completed in the past, but are related with what is attainable in the future,and partly because act is never to be compared with punishment.
This paper has touched upon the three factors of general deterrence in America, England, and so on. About the relationship between the severity and the certainty of punishment, it indicates that the former alone does not act as a deterrence to crime, but does act together with the latter. This paper deals with the celerity of punishment which has been ignored in the field of general deterrence. Only recently Williams and Hawkins posed an important question to the traditional perceptual research on general deterrence. With this clue to go upon, this paper also treats of the problems about the perceptual research on general deterrence. Less
|
