曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
The application of the above approach within U.S. resulted in an increased number of police on patrol, which resulted in a decrease in the number of robberies in New York City subways. Also, increasing the number of police on patrol decreased the number of outdoor felonies in the Twentieth Precinct of New York. Increasing the certainty and severity of punishment for drunk driving has similarly been is effective in reducing drunk driving.
Generally, these studies support the hypothesis that two factors lead a criminal to perceive a greater risk of punishment. These factors are: .rst, certainty, or a high probability of being arrested and convicted, second, the severity of harshness of the punishment. Certainty and severity of punishment an each have an individual effect on crime prevention; but there is a greater impact when certainty and severity are combined.
Deterrence as a theoretical concept that can be applied in most instances of criminology with practical results is based on the basic assumption that individuals are rational beings. Rationality promotes bene.t maximizing behaviour that appears to human beings even against constraints. This means that individuals as rational beings pursue their maximizing goals by making the best choices they can. The underlying concept of the deterrence theory supports the hypothesis that rationalists consider potential criminals as rational decision-makers faced with constraints and uncertainty in their decision making process. The explanation of governmental actions follows the same pattern of the rational model. Therefore, an analyst could conclude that criminals and governmental of.cials are engaged in a “game” where criminals try to maximize their illegitimate goals through the “least expensive” (apprehension and punishment) approaches and governmental policy makers try to prevent crimes by increasing the probability of apprehension and creating a punishment measure which will serve as a deterrent.
The model that when other variables are held constant, an increase in the person’s probability of conviction would decrease the number of offences he or she commits was .rst introduced in 1968, where a model was developed based on an individual’s participation in criminal activity. This theory holds the view that changing the probability of conviction (certainty) has a greater effect on the number of offences than a change in punishment (severity).
In 1973, a formulation of a more comprehensive model of the decision to engage in unlawful activities, based on available empirical evidence, tested the earlier theory and revealed that the rate of speci.c felonies was positively related to estimates of relative gains, and negatively related to estimates of costs associated with criminal activity. One wonders, however, what the effect would be of the above .ndings on a criminal who does not intend living after the perpetration of the crime.
IV. Problems of Deterrence
The only deterrence that would be effective against terrorism of any nature is broadly based on the success of convincing the terrorist that the risk he takes
C. Emerging Threats
outweighs the bene.ts which may accrue to his cause by his act. The futility of attempting to wipe out terrorism by the use of military force or the threat of general sanction on an international level is apparent. The terrorist has to be shown that any attempt at terrorist activity would cause him and his cause more harm than good. Deterrence in this context attains fruition when effective punitive sanctions are prescribed and carried out whilst simultaneously denying the terrorist his demands. In both instances the measures taken should be imperatively effective. It is not suf.cient if such measures are merely entered into the statute books of a State or incorporated into international treaty. The international community has to be convinced that such measures are forceful and capable of being carried out.
However, deterrence does not stop at the mere imposition of effective sanction nor does it complete its task by the denial of terrorist demands. Arguably, the most effective method of countering terrorism is psychological warfare. The terrorist himself depends heavily on psychology. His main task is to polarize the people and the establishment. He wants popular support and a sympathetic ear. He wants a lot of people listening and watching, not a lot of people dead. Counter measures taken against a terrorist attack, be it hostage taking, kidnapping or a threat of murder, should essentially include an effective campaign to destroy the terrorist’s credibility and sincerity in the eyes of the public. Always, the loyalty of the public should be won over by the target and not by the terrorist. It is only then that the terrorist’s risk outweighs the bene.ts he obtains. To achieve this objective it must be ensured that the terrorist receives publicity detrimental to him, showing the public that if the threatened person, group of persons or State comes to harm, the terrorist alone is responsible. Therefore, the most practical measures that could be adopted to deter the spread of terrorism can be accommodated in two chronological stages:
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(14)
