Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:46:03.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deterrence: Some Theoretical Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Michael R. Geerken  and
Walter R. Gove
Walter R. Gove
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During the first half of this century, most research on deterrence suggested that punishment had little effect on behavior. These findings tended to confirm the ideological position of most sociologists, who generally assumed that criminal behavior was not and probably could not be controlled by legal sanctions. However, recent developments indicate that this assumption is in error. First, laboratory research (e.g., Banduara, 1969:292-353; Bandua and Walters, 1963) has demonstrated that under certain conditions, punishment can effectively and efficiently control behavior, and that such control can be obtained through vicarious reinforcement. Second, and more important, research since 1960 by both economists and sociologists, generally more sophisticated than earlier work, suggests that legal sanctions often play a significant role in preventing criminal behavior. (See, for example, Chambliss, 1966; Gibbs, 1968; Tittle, 1969; Logan, 1972; Chiricos and Waldo, 1970; Tittle and Rowe, 1974; 1973; Jensen, 1969; Waldo and Chiricos, 1972; Phillips and Votey, 1972; Phillips, 1973). Thus the issue for future research is no longer whether legal sanctions ever deter criminal behavior, but the specification of the conditions under which they have such an effect. This paper seeks to develop some hypotheses to guide future research on these conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Spring 1975 , pp. 497 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

*

In writing this paper we benefited greatly from conversation with Bruce Mayhew. We would like to thank Lisa Heinrich, Jeff Reynolds and Mayer Zald for their comments on an earlier draft.

References

ANDENAES, Johannes (1966) “The General Preventive Effects of Punishment,” 114 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 949.Google Scholar
BAILEY, William C. and Ronald W., SMITH (1972) “Punishment: its Severity and Certainty,” 63 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 530.Google Scholar
BALL, John C. (1955) “The Deterrence Concept in Criminology and Law,” 46 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 347.Google Scholar
BANDURA, Albert (1969) Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
BANDURA, Albert and Richard H., WALTERS (1963) Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
BORDUA, David J. and Edward W., HAUREK (1970) “The Police Budget's Lot,” 13 American Behavioral Scientist 667.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, D.T. (1958) “Systematic Error on the Part of Human Links in Communication Systems,” 1 Information and Control 334.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, D.T. and H. Lawrence, ROSS (1968) “The Connecticut Crackdown on Speeding: Time Series Data in Quasi-Experimental Analysis,” 3 Law & Society Review 33.Google Scholar
CHAMBLISS, William J. (1966) “The Deterrence Influence of Punishment,” 12 Crime and Delinquency 70.Google Scholar
CHIRICOS, Theodore G. and Gordon P., WALDO (1970) “Punishment and Crime: an Examination of Some Empirical Evidence,” 18 Social Problems 200.Google Scholar
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (1941) 11 Uniform Crime Reports 95 (No. 1). Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (1951) 12 Uniform Crime Reports 16 (No. 1). Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (1960) Uniform Crime Reports 105. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (1970) Uniform Crime Reports 163. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
GIBBS, Jack P. (1972) “Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence,” 48 Southwestern Social Science 515.Google Scholar
GUNNING, J.P. Jr. (1973) “How Profitable is Burglary?” in Rottenberg, Simon (ed.) The Economics of Crime & Punishment. Washington: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
JENSEN, Gary F. (1969) “Crime Doesn't Pay: Correlates of a Shared Misunderstanding,” 17 Social Problems 189.Google Scholar
KROHM, Gregory C. (1973) “An Alternative View of the Return to Burglary,” 11 Western Economic Journal 364.Google Scholar
LAWRENCE, Douglas H. and Leon, FESTINGER (1962) Deterrents and Reinforcement. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
LOGAN, Charles (1972) “General Deterrent Effects of Imprisonment,” 51 Social Forces 64.Google Scholar
McGINNIS, R. (1968) “A Stochastic Model of Social Mobility,” 33 American Sociological Review 712.Google Scholar
MILLER, G.A. (1956) “The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” 63 Psychological Review 81.Google Scholar
MOTT, P.E. (1965) The Organization of Society. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
PHILLIPS, Llad (1973) “Crime Control: the Case for Deterrence,” in Rottenberg, Simon (ed.) The Economics of Crime and Punishment. Washington: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
PHILLIPS, Llad and Harold L., VOTEY Jr. (1972) “An Economic Analysis of the Deterrent Effect of Law Enforcement on Criminal Activity,” 63 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 330.Google Scholar
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (1967a) “Crime and Its Impact—An Assessment,” Task Force Report. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (1967b) “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,” Task Force Report. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
SESNOWITZ, Michael (1972) “The Returns to Burglary,” 10 Western Economic Journal 177.Google Scholar
SESNOWITZ, Michael (1973) “The Returns to Burglary: an Alternative to the Alternative,” 11 Western Economic Journal 368.Google Scholar
SHORT, James and Fred, STRODBECK (1965) Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (1968) Public Knowledge of Criminal Penalties: A Research Report.Google Scholar
SUTHERLAND, E.H. and D.R., CRESSEY (1970) Criminology (8th edition). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.Google Scholar
TAPPAN, Paul W. (1960) Crime, Justice and Correction. Boston: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
TITTLE, Charles R. (1969) “Crime Rates and Legal Sanctions, 16 Social Problems 409.Google Scholar
TITTLE, Charles and Charles, LOGAN (1973) “Sanctions and Deviance: Evidence and Remaining Questions,” 7 Law & Society Review 371.Google Scholar
TITTLE, Charles and Alan R., ROWE (1973) “Moral Appeal, Sanction Threat and Deviance: an Experimental Test,” 20 Social Problems 488.Google Scholar
TITTLE, Charles and Alan R., ROWE (1974) “Certainty of Arrest and Crime Rates: a Further Test of the Deterrence Hypothesis,” 52 Social Forces 455.Google Scholar
TULLOCK, Gordon (1974) “Does Punishment Deter Crime?” 36 The Public Interest 101.Google Scholar
WALDO, Gordon P. and Theodore G., CHIRICOS (1972) “Perceived Penal Sanction and Self-Reported Criminality: a Neglected Approach to Deterrence Research,” 19 Social Problems 522.Google Scholar
ZIMRING, Franklin E. (1971) Perspectives on Deterrence. Washington: Public Health Service Publication (No. 2056).Google Scholar
ZIMRING, Franklin E. and Gordon J., HAWKINS (1973) Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar