Final answer:
General deterrence is emphasized to prevent crime by instilling the fear of punishment, although its effectiveness is mixed. Incarceration, a form of deterrence, may not always produce the intended rehabilitative or deterrent outcomes, with alternatives like diversion programs often being preferable.
Step-by-step explanation:
The theory of disablement does indeed emphasize general deterrence as a method for crime prevention. The idea is that by punishing criminals, it will serve as a deterrent to both the individual punished and the general public, ultimately reducing the likelihood of crimes being committed. However, this philosophy is contested, with some arguments suggesting that rather than acting as a deterrent, punishment might sometimes have counterproductive effects. It's underlined by the concept of general deterrence, which is the notion that the fear of punishment will discourage others from committing similar crimes. However, the results can be contradictory, as evidenced by programs like Scared Straight that have paradoxically led to higher rates of criminal behavior among participants. Incarceration, as often used in the United States, is thought to offer rehabilitation opportunities too, although its effectiveness as a deterrent is debatable.
Despite the mixed effectiveness of deterrence strategies, they are routinely part of the criminal justice system, including policies like sentencing enhancements for specific crimes, which have been associated with modest reductions in crime. For instance, the extension of sentences for gun-related crimes resulted in a 5% drop in such offenses. On the other hand, juvenile incarceration often backfires, increasing the likelihood of future crime instead of curbing it. Alternatives like diversion and prevention programs are deemed more effective, especially when they focus on education and improving economic conditions for at-risk youth.