December 2016 33

An Examination of Theory: Where Do We Stand?

Kelli D. Tomlinson Tarrant County Adult Community Supervision and Department

DETERRENCE THEORY HAS been the social reformer. Beccaria’s treatise was nota­ target group receives the message and perceives underlying foundation for many criminal jus­ bly the first concise and orderly statement of it as a threat; and (3) the group makes rational tice policies and practices throughout the standards governing criminal and choices based on the information received. course of American history. Although it was called for major reform in the criminal jus­ Assumption one is the easiest to achieve: Most once the dominant theory within the realm of tice system. Although not the main purpose people are aware that it is wrong to , it now competes with other devel­ of his work, contained within his essay was or steal, etc., although they may not be aware oping, more comprehensive and integrated an underlying theory of criminology which of the specific penalties for other than theories about criminal behavior such as life argued that individuals make decisions based murder. Assumptions two and three, however, course theory or Agnew’s general theory of on what will garner them pleasure and avoid are more problematic. The conjecture is made . Criminologists have relentlessly tested pain, and unless deterred, they will pursue that everyone will be threatened by the sanction deterrence theory using scientific methods their own desires, even by committing crimes for the crime; however, this is not always the to assist in informing and educating policy­ (Beccaria, 1986 [1764]). Bentham’s work has case. For some individuals, being arrested and makers, as well as to unravel the mystery of developed a more broad and general theory serving time in jail or is a way of life. In crime reduction. This essay first examines the of behavior than did Beccaria’s, and his work addition, people do not always make rational theory, including the main tenets, the inher­ has been credited with being the forerunner choices, especially while under the influence of ent assumptions of the theory, and the goals to modern rational choice theory (Bentham, drugs and/or alcohol, which research shows a set forth by the theory. An inductive content 1988 [1789]). fair number of arrestees are at the time of their analysis of numerous scholarly, peer-reviewed Additionally, classical theory posits that offense (Chapman et al., 2010). articles was conducted to identify key themes should be swift, certain, and As a final comment, it might be noted in the literature pertaining to deterrence and to proportionate to the crime in order to appro­ that deterrence theory is both a micro- and ascertain whether or not the goals of the theory priately deter individuals from violating macro-level theory. The concept of specific have been met, as evidenced by scientific test­ the . Beccaria called for that were deterrence proposes that individuals who ing. Whether or not the theory did achieve its clearly written and for making the law and commit crime(s) and are caught and punished intended goals will be addressed throughout its corresponding punishments known to the will be deterred from future criminal activ­ the essay. Last, I present a summary of the public, so people would be educated about the ity. On the other hand, general deterrence major findings and commentary on the overall consequences of their behavior. These basic suggests that the general population will be utility of the theory. principles of classical theory would later come deterred from offending when they are aware to be known as deterrence theory. of others being apprehended and punished. Overview of Deterrence Theory Deterrence theory was revived in the 1970s Both specific and general deterrence, how­ Modern deterrence theories have their foun­ when various economists and criminologists ever, are grounded in individuals’ perceptions dation in classical criminological theory began to speculate about the topic again, not regarding severity, certainty, and celerity of derived mainly from an Essay on Crimes and only as an explanation for why people commit punishment. It is essential to understand Punishments written by , an crime but also as a solution to crime (Pratt et how perceptions of these factors do or do not Italian economist and , in 1764, al., 2006). The principal assumptions made translate into criminal behavior. and from An Introduction to the Principles by the theory include: (1) a message is relayed of Morals and Legislation (Introduction to to a target group [e.g., it is wrong to murder, Perceptions of Punishments the Principles), written in 1781 by Jeremy and if you take another’s life you could go to Much of the scholarly literature pertaining Bentham an English philosopher, jurist, and prison or receive the death penalty]; (2) the to deterrence theory examines the certainty, 34 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3 celerity (or swiftness) of punishment, and the early 1990s were partly responsible for illogical fallacies of this mode of thinking and severity, and their intended effects on offend­ the increase in incarcerated offenders, as well proposed a reconceptualization of deterrence ers (Bailey & Smith, 1972; Geerken & Gove, as other sentencing initiatives such as man­ theory that takes into account the reality that 1977; Paternoster, 1987; Howe & Loftus, 1996; datory minimums and truth-in-sentencing a person could experience both general and Maxwell & Gray, 2000; Nagin & Pogarsky, laws. Three strikes legislation was touted specific deterrence (Stafford & Warr, 1993; 2001). For example, if when a person commits as a deterrent to serious offenders due to Paternoster & Piquero, 1995). Although the a crime the likelihood of being apprehended is reduced judicial discretion (increasing cer­ researchers did not explicitly state it, actu­ high and that he or she will be swiftly punished tainty) and increased severity in penalties. ally what is being used to conceptualize the and severely enough, these outcomes and their Yet, after much empirical testing, researchers erroneous dichotomization regarding specific teaching effect will deter the person (as well as have found no significant deterrent effects for versus general deterrence is the bifurcation others) from committing future crimes. Any such laws (Males & Macallair, 1999; King & fallacy. This fallacy presents a false dilemma delay between the commission of an offense Mauer, 2001; Kovandzic, 2001). This may be or a premise only allowing two choices, when and commencement of its associated punish­ because these laws did not take into account there is actually at least one other option, if ment is postulated to reduce the deterrent a person’s many other factors that have been not more. effect of the sanction. Furthermore, if the pun­ correlated with criminal conduct, such as age, Stafford and Warr (1993) proposed that ishment for the crime is not severe enough to gender, impulsivity, mental illness, antisocial it is possible for most individuals to have an cause sufficient discomfort or inconvenience personality disorder, etc. (Ellis, Beaver, & experience with both general and specific to the actor, he will not be deterred from Wright, 2009). In addition, some research has deterrence, or a mixture of indirect and direct engaging in additional criminal acts. These shown that these laws may have an inverse experience with punishment. They argue clas­ underlying assumptions of the theory point effect—that is, to increase crime (Kovandzic sical deterrence theory suggests that those toward a linkage between perceptions and the et al., 2004). affected by general deterrence are assumed actions on which they are based. Schneider & Ervin’s (1990) research to have never had a direct experience with Research regarding severity, certainty, and showed that people who had been punished punishment, and this is simply not the case. celerity has shown mixed results. Severity of more severely actually engaged in more crime; There are individuals who may be affected punishment was once thought to deliver the this could be due to the punishment creating by seeing others being punished, but who main deterrent effect; the more severe the a chain reaction of other events which reduce also may have committed crime in the past. consequence for law-breaking, the less likely individuals’ opportunities for conventional Likewise, those categorized as experiencing an individual is to commit a crime. However, behavior (e.g., stable employment, close fam­ specific deterrence are assumed not to be this assumption has not been supported in ily ties) and weakening of social bonds. One affected by vicarious punishment. It is likely the literature (Paternoster, 1987; Schneider & study examining perceptual deterrence of that a person who has committed a crime Ervin, 1990; Kovandzic, et al., 2004; Kleck et active residential burglars found that sever­ (specific experience) is also aware of friends al., 2005; Paternoster, 2010). Kleck et al. com­ ity alone did not have a significant impact on or acquaintances who have been apprehended. mented that although increased punishments offenders’ decisions to commit burglary. Only The complex nature of social context, human may in fact reduce crime, this reduction can when severity was factored into the expected interaction, and individual decision making also be attributed to incapacitation effects gain from the illegal activity did it have an cannot be accounted for by the basic model of (large number of offenders incarcerated), effect (Decker et al., 1993). This finding does deterrence theory. not necessarily to general deterrence (2005). speak to the rational decision-making process Additional research supports Stafford The United States has experienced an incar­ of offenders proposed by the theory, at least and Warr’s reconceptualization model. For ceration binge over the last several decades; in some crime categories, but it also points instance, Paternoster and Piquero (1995) in 1980 there were approximately 501,886 to a weakness of a central assumption of the found support for the concurrent effects of incarcerated persons in and jails, and theory that severity of punishment deters both specific and general deterrence in their at year-end 2009 there were 2,284,913. These people. Additionally, chronic offenders, or study involving self-report measures and col­ figures do not include probation or parole; those known as career criminals, have been lege students’ perceptions of punishment. when probation and parole figures are added shown to perceive the chance of apprehension Their findings suggested “the overall deter­ in, the total number of individuals under some as quite low (Bridges & Stone, 1986). This may rent effect of perceived risk to self [on minor form of correctional supervision in 1980 was be related to perceptions involving the errone­ forms of illegal substance use] was due to a 1,840,400, increasing to 7,225,800 in 2009 ous dichotomization of specific versus general combination of personal (specific deterrence) (BJS, 2010). Although crime rates in the U.S. deterrence, certainty of punishment, and the and vicarious (general deterrent) experiences” did steadily decline over several decades, notion of punishment avoidance. (1995, p. 281). It should be noted however, this cannot be solely attributed to deterrence, Deterrence in general, whether contex­ that conducting this type of research on col­ but to incapacitation effects and possibly to tualized as specific or general, depends on lege students may introduce a bias, as college changes in activity (Paternoster, 2010). an offender or would-be offender’s percep­ students may not be representative of the total And in fact crime rates in the U.S. remain tions of sanction threats, the probability of population of criminals. One could propose higher than in any other Western nation. apprehension, and the like. Also, the frame­ that college students differ from “criminals” in Several forms of punitive, deterrence- works for both specific and general deterrence some systematic way, that they have more self- focused legislation are responsible for this in the early literature discussed these as if control, have goals and can follow through dramatic increase in imprisonment rates. they were mutually exclusive occurrences. with them, are more naïve and higher in risk- Sanction threats such as three strikes laws in However, researchers have documented the sensitivity because they have more to lose. December 2016 AN EXAMINATION OF DETERRENCE THEORY 35

In addition, not only has research shown a sanction threats; (2) personal encounter with of convictions), new methods of testing the concurrent effect of both general and specific punishment avoidance; (3) indirect experience certainty facet of deterrence were employed in deterrence, but it has also revealed an effect of with punishment; and (4) indirect experience later scholarship. punishment avoidance. with punishment avoidance (Stafford & Warr, The next phase in testing the certainty of Much of the early scholarly discourse sur­ 1993; Paternoster & Piquero, 1995). Thus, deterrence involved use of individual sur­ rounding the deterrence theory ignored the the original deterrence model is expanded to veys; this went beyond aggregate measures possibility of punishment avoidance and its incorporate perceptions of risk based on both and attempted to tap personal perceptions, effect on individuals. This can be attributed personal experiences and vicarious experi­ which is integral to understanding indi­ to oversimplification of a complex issue— ences of others, tries to expand the linkage vidual-level decision making to engage in making broad over-generalizations and only between perceptions and actions, and helps crime. Individuals were asked about their examining formal sanction threats and their to explain the complex interaction of these perceptions of the certainty of punishment in effects on individuals, while not taking into variables upon individual decision making in relation to past or future criminal behavior, account informal influences. Punishment relation to crime. At its core is the idea that and correlations were tested amongst these avoidance refers to the situation where a certainty of punishment is more important variables (Schneider & Ervin, 1990; Maxwell person commits a criminal offense, but is not to an individual contemplating crime than & Gray, 2000). These studies primarily used caught and punished by the criminal is severity or celerity. Moreover, such find­ cross-sectional designs and received much system. Stafford and Warr, in their reconcep­ ings deteriorate the simplistic assumptions criticism due to problems with temporal tualization of deterrence theory, proposed a asserted by the original theory; particularly ordering of variables. In effect, people were model incorporating punishment avoidance because the original theory only focuses on mainly being asked about perceived certainty into both specific and general deterrence; legal sanction threats and does not account for of punishment on past criminal offending. hence, general deterrence includes “indirect informal influences. Certainty of punishment Researchers recognized this issue and began experience with punishment and punishment has garnered much attention in the research to employ longitudinal studies in testing the avoidance and specific deterrence refers to the when severity of punishment failed to deliver effect of certainty. One such study specifi­ deterrent effect of direct experience with pun­ expected results. cally addressed the temporal sequencing issue ishment and punishment avoidance” (1993, p. The impact of certainty of punishment for and found offenders who had direct experi­ 127). Individuals who experience punishment criminal acts is just as murky as the research ence with the system actually avoidance may increase offending behaviors on severity of punishment. Some studies indi­ perceived a decrease in certainty of sanction because of the perception that the likelihood cate perceived certainty of sanction threats threats (Saltzman et al., 1982). Again, to of being caught is low. This type of thinking has very little effect on re-offense rates (Kleck this writer, this finding clearly points to the on the part of offenders contains several logi­ et al., 2005), whereas other research claims fact that individuals commit more crimes cal fallacies, one being confirmation bias—a it does have an effect on some people but than those for which they are caught and form of selective thinking that focuses on not others (Matthews & Agnew, 2008). Early punished, so when they actually are caught evidence that supports what believers already deterrence theory research recognized the once or a couple of times, their past experi­ believe while ignoring evidence that refutes importance of certainty of punishment and ences with punishment avoidance affect their their beliefs. Secondly, observation selection the methodology of testing went through future decision making regarding reoffending. is at play here when offenders point out several waves. Sociologist Matthew Silberman They are basing decisions on flawed calcula­ favorable circumstances while ignoring unfa­ was one of the first researchers to use indi­ tions and false confidence in avoiding future vorable ones—“I have gotten away with many vidual survey research in conjunction with punishment. Furthermore, deterrence theory crimes thus far and the chances are I will never aggregate crime data in his examination of really boils down to individual decision mak­ get caught,” or “I am not hurting anyone in deterrence theory, and found that certainty of ing more than macro-level considerations, the process,” but they are hurting someone in punishment was differentially affected by the although many crime control policies are some way and risking their freedom in doing type of crime committed (1976). Geerken and based on both specific and general deterrence. so. The reconceptualization model is a signifi­ Gove found similar patterns in their research, Consequently, research attempting to refine cant advancement of classic deterrence theory. including perceived certainty of punishments deterrence should be conducted with indi­ The reconceptualization model has a that differed according to crime type (1977). viduals, as opposed to using aggregate-level number of advantages over the traditional Chambliss also articulated that those who analysis, when the main goal is to tap percep­ deterrence model (Stafford & Warr, 1993). commit “expressive crimes” such as drug tual deterrence and its linkage to behaviors First, it allows for both specific and general use, murder, or sex offenses are less deterred based on those perceptions. deterrence to have an effect on a person con­ when compared to “instrumental crimes” or More recently and contradictory to the currently. Second, it recognizes the discrete economic crimes (1967). One should con­ immediate previous discussion, Wright et al. operation of punishment avoidance, sepa­ template the fact that the seriousness of the found those predisposed to crime are more rate from experiencing punishment. Third, it offense affects the individual’s perception of likely affected by perceived certainty of pun­ allows for congruence with other theories such being caught, as it is more difficult to avoid ishment (2004). Several studies examined as learning theory, and is more comprehensive detection of these acts, whereas lesser crimes the perceived certainty of sanction threats in its ability to explain offending behaviors. of an economic nature may be easier to with a group of probationers entering a In essence, the model includes four types of commit without detection. Beyond the early court-ordered drug rehabilitation program. effects that may impact an individual’s choice research, which relied mainly on objective Although violations of probation are not to violate the law: (1) personal encounter with measures (e.g., number of arrests, number always considered law violations (violations 36 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3 such as positive urine tests for illegal drugs a little more definitive than the state of either go to jail). These threats plainly do not deter indicate risk of reoffending and continued severity or certainty. all people from committing crime, as the disregard for the law), the authors argued their The tenet of celerity has received the theory asserts. This has led some to propose study attended to the temporal issue by gath­ least support in the scholarly literature with that components of deterrence theory be ering information on perceptions of certainty regards to deterrence. Bentham proposed incorporated with other criminological theo­ of sanctions before violations occurred and that the promptness of the sanction after ries, and this was a consistent theme which with individuals who have engaged in serious commission of a criminal act is integral “for emerged from the content analysis of articles offenses (Maxwell & Gray, 2000; Marlowe et punishment to keep its superiority over the for this essay. al., 2005). Results revealed “support for the profit of the offense...” (Howe & Loftus, 1996). positive effect of the offenders’ perceptions of Nonetheless, some social scientists have even Integration of Deterrence the certainty of sanction on their outcome sta­ argued that celerity is irrelevant and only with Other Theories tus and their lengths of time in the program” applies to animal behavior (Grice, 1948; Traditions in criminological research have (Maxwell & Gray, 2000, p. 132). This finding Kamin, 1957; Mackintosh, 1974, as cited in often centered on the development of one is not surprising considering offenders in this Howe & Loftus, 1996). Nagin and Pogarsky particular theory by which all crime can be program were being monitored closely by found “variation in sanction certainty and explained. Throughout the early twentieth probation officers and were receiving regular severity predicted offending, but variation in century numerous theories regarding criminal drug testing. They were already in a “real” sit­ celerity did not” (2001, p. 865). The delay in behavior were developed to account for offend­ uation that threatened their freedom instead meting out punishment, a common occur­ ing, and were sometimes pitted against each of being surveyed about past involvement in rence in the American criminal justice system, other in this effort. Criminologists recognize crime. Furthermore, Pogarsky et al. stated that is a logical consideration not to be over­ the importance of theory integration explain­ perceptions of sanction threats change over looked. In many cases, those arrested and ing complex human behavior such as criminal time according to experiences of the indi­ prosecuted may not receive a final disposition offending, even as far back as vidual and other moderating factors (2004). until two years after they are arrested. Cases in the 1800s. Some of Lombroso’s later work This is an important postulate because it is are continually passed and reset in the legal proposed integration of biological, psycho­ naïve to think that humans are primarily static maneuvering game by both prosecutors and logical, social, and other factors to fully explain and impervious to any external forces or social defense attorneys. Paternoster stated that the criminal behavior (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). contexts, as well as internal changes brought system does not sufficiently make use of the There are a couple of useful models for theory about by these external stimuli, which may that individuals supposedly employ integration that will be described briefly, fol­ lead to an increase in self-reflection or matu­ when weighing the costs and benefits of their lowed by an analysis of proposals found within rity. Nonetheless, certainty of punishment has actions because of such delays (2010). the articles examined for this essay. elicited various responses by scholars. Mendes reviews several explanations for The two main types of theory integra­ Several common responses can be seen the differential and confounding findings tion include conceptual and propositional in the literature with regard to the mixture pertaining to the three central fundamental integration. Conceptual integration involves of findings on certainty of punishment. First, elements of deterrence theory. First, the ele­ overlapping concepts from one theory onto some scholars have posited that threatening ment of risk taking—the degree to which another, or examining similarities in concepts individuals with sanctions from the State individuals are willing to take risks and how between two, or amongst several, theories. does not matter, because crime is largely a they perceive risk factors—in certain situa­ Several decades ago Akers discussed the function of informal and other tions plays a key role (2004). This component manner in which “social learning theory variables such as criminal associates and was actually asserted by Becker (1968), an concepts and propositions overlap with and morality (Paternoster, 1987). Second, others economist who has been credited with the complement social bonding, labeling, con­ have argued that some people are deterred revival of deterrence theory in the 1970s. flict, , and deterrence theories” (Akers while other types of people are not; therefore, Second, extralegal factors such as morals, & Sellers, 2009, p. 303). However, he did certainty of punishment will have no effect, at beliefs, and informal social consequences point out that conceptual integration does least on some people. Third, criminologists come to bear on decision-making, which not necessarily translate into propositional have begun studying factors affecting percep­ may account for variability across sever­ integration. Propositional integration refers tions about certainty of punishment that may ity, certainty, and celerity (Mendes, 2004). to how two or more theories make similar explain the differential effects measured in Furthermore, there are several underlying predictions about crime even though each the research literature. Still others claim that fallacies of logic I see within the theory of theory may begin with different concepts certainty of punishment mostly deters those deterrence and tangential issues such as pun­ and assumptions, as well as taking explicative with a high predisposition (or low “risk-sen­ ishment avoidance. One is the “argument of features from different theories and develop­ sitivity”) from offending because those with a adverse consequences,” which refers to the ing them into some kind of causal pattern or low predisposition (“high risk-sensitivity”) are assumption that if a person who commits sequence (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 303). not likely to engage in crime at all (Matthews a crime is not caught and punished, others A consistent theme emerged in many of the & Agnew, 2008). All of these claims seem to will commit crime due to the failure of the articles reviewed for this essay, which simply have merit and have been scientifically tested, criminal justice system. Also, one can see the stated that deterrence theory alone is not suffi­ and therefore it is difficult to reconcile these fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, which is cient to explain criminal behavior, nor is it the differences. Or, is reconciliation even the an argument based on an appeal to fear or be-all and end-all solution for reducing crime. proper answer? Last, the position on celerity is a threat (if you don’t obey the law, you will Many of the articles called for integration of December 2016 AN EXAMINATION OF DETERRENCE THEORY 37 deterrence with other criminological theo­ Conclusion References ries (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Paternoster In sum, the state of deterrence theory is still Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Crimino­ & Piquero, 1995; Nagin & Porgarsky, 2001; confusing. The mixture of findings in the logical theories: Introduction, evaluation, Wright et al., 2004; Matthews & Agnew, literature indicates that additional research and application, 5e. New York, NY: Oxford 2008). Social control and social bond theories is needed as new concepts and models University Press. Bailey, W. C., & Smith, R. W. (1972). Punish­ were explained to impact rational choices of are formulated. Early deterrence research ment: Its severity and certainty. The Journal offenders (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Nagin focused on severity, certainty, and celerity of , Criminology, and Police & Porgarsky, 2001). It seems logical that a of punishment, as well as the dichotomy , 63(4), 530-539. person’s criminal propensity, which is directly of specific versus general deterrence. More Beccaria, C. (1986 [1764]). An essay on crimes affected by the individual’s level of self-con­ recent studies have introduced new ideas and punishments. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett trol, could be a significant factor impacting his such as punishment avoidance, deterrability, Publishing Company, Inc. or her decision to commit crime. Also, there defiance, and the effect of informal factors Becker, G. (1968). : An is much value in the assertions made within that impact a person’s decision. It seems as economic approach. Journal of Political social bond theory that the more positive the though deterrence works for some people, Economy, 78, 169-217. attachment, commitment, involvement, and but not for others. Some individuals are Bentham, J. (1988 [1789]). The principles of mor­ prosocial beliefs an individual possesses, the “deterrable,” while others are not (Jacobs, als and legislation. Prometheus Books. Bridges, G. S., & Stone, J. A. (1986). Effects of lower the likelihood he or she will engage 2010). The scientific evidence “leads to the criminal punishment on perceived threat in crime (especially coupled with high self- conclusion there is a marginal deterrent of punishment toward an understanding of control), regardless of the threats made by the effect for legal sanctions, but this conclusion specific deterrence. Journal on Research in State for law-breaking behavior. On the other must be swallowed with a hefty dose of cau­ Crime and Delinquency, 23(3), 207-239. hand, deterrence theory cannot account for tion and skepticism; it is very difficult to state Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Correctional these individuals’ behavior. Some may argue with any precision how strong a deterrent populations in the United States, 2009. U.S. the theory is not designed to address those effect the criminal justice system provides” Department of Justice, Office of Justice that would not consider crime anyway, but if (Paternoster, 2010). This is especially true Programs. NCJ 231681. one finds truth in the theory of self-control, considering how many crimes, especially Chambliss, W. J. (1967). Types of and which asserts that all individuals would com­ and sexual assault, are not the effectiveness of legal sanctions. Wiscon­ mit crime if given the chance, then how reported to the police. This represents signif­ sin Law Review, 703-719. Chapman, M., Collins, S., Flygare, C., Hunt, would one reconcile these two theories? Yet, icant information about criminal behavior, or D., Kuck-Jalbert, S., Kling, R., Kulka, R., additional research calls for integration of human behavior, not objectively measured— Nobo, C., & Rhodes, W. (2010). Adam II: deterrence with other theories. notwithstanding the inevitable biases and 2009 annual report. Office of National Drug Paternoster & Piquero argue that “deter­ inaccuracies of existing data. Control. Policy, Washington, DC. rence variables are inextricably part of the Overall, the empirical evidence points Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminologi­ causal process of social learning/differential toward non-legal factors, such as marriage, cal theory: Past to present essential readings. association, rational choice, and social control employment, peers, morality, disapproval from Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing theories” (1995, p. 281). People who associate loved ones, ostracism, and shame, having a Company. with undesirables learn processes and tech­ more significant impact on conformity than Decker, S., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Per­ niques for offending, as well as learning the do sanction threats (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001; ceptual deterrence among active residential thinking and beliefs that neutralize culpability Paternoster & Piquero, 1995). Furthermore, burglars: A research note. Criminology, 31(1), 135-147. for law-breaking, or they acquire an excess the research also shows that in some cases Geerken, M., & Gove, W. R. (1977). Deterrence, of definitions favorable to violating the law. some criminals do act rationally, but due to overload and incapacitation: An empirical There is merit in the assumptions made by the inadequacies of the criminal justice sys­ evaluation. Social Forces, 56(2), 424-447. this theory as well. Delinquent peers do have tem deterrent effects are diminished or even Howe, E. S., & Loftus, T. C. (1996). Integration an effect on the decision to commit crime; vanish. The plight of the mentally ill and the of certainty, severity, and celerity informa­ perceived certainty has been shown to have effect of deterrence on these individuals were tion in judged deterrence value: Further an inverse correlation among those with a not addressed in this particular set of articles. evidence and methodological equivalence. high number of delinquent peers (Matthews However, that is yet another complicated Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(3), & Agnew, 2008). Wright et al. comment the issue to be examined. Additionally, classic 116-242. “study of crime is intrinsically social-psycho­ deterrence theory assumes the propensity to Jacobs, B. (2010). Deterrence and deterrability. logical” (2004, p. 208), meaning crime cannot commit crime is equal across all persons. This Criminology, 48(2), 417-441. King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2001). Aging behind be evaluated or explained absent the social is a pretty bold assumption that has yet to be bars: Three strikes seven years later. Wash­ environment and without consideration of proven. What one can deduce is that deter­ ington, DC: The Sentencing Project. psychological traits of individuals. Deterrence rence theory may work for some people in Kleck, G., Sever, B., , S., & Gertz, M. (2005). theory lacks contemplation of psychological certain contexts if carried out appropriately. The missing link in general deterrence traits, although it does incorporate some ele­ However, it should not be considered a “gen­ research. Criminology, 43(3), 623-660. ment of social context (vicarious experiences eral” theory of crime, or a “general” solution Kovandzic, T. (2001). The impact of Florida’s of others in thwarting an individual’s consid­ for all crime. habitual offender law on crime. Criminol­ eration to commit crime). ogy, 39, 179-204. Kovandzic, T. V., Sloan III, J. J., Vieraitis, L. M. 38 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 80 Number 3

(2004). “Striking out” as a crime reduction ing individual differences and rational pirical status of deterrence theory: A meta policy: The impact of “three strikes” laws on choice theories of crime. Law & analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. crime rates in U.S. cities. Justice Quarterly, Review, 27(3), 467-496. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status 21(2), 207-239. Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrat- of criminological theory, vol XV. New Males, M., & Macallair, D. (1999). Striking out: ing celerity, impulsivity and extralegal Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. The failure of California’s three strikes and sanction threats into a model of general Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G. P., & you’re out law. Stanford Law and Policy deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminol- Chiricos, T. G. (1982). Deterrent and expe- Review, 11, 65-102. ogy, 39(4), 865-892. riential effects: The problem of causal order Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect in perceptual deterrence research. Journal A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005). Perceived deter­ of the perceived certainty and severity of of Research in Crime and Delinquency, rence outcomes in drug court. Behavioral punishment: A review of the evidence and 19(2), 172-189. & the Law, 23, 183-198. issues. Justice Quarterly 4:173–217. Schneider, A. L., & Ervin, L. (1990). Specific Matthews, S. K., & Agnew, R. (2008). Extend­ ______. (2010). How much do we really deterrence, rational choice, and decision ing deterrence theory: Do delinquent peers know about criminal deterrence? Journal heuristics: Applications in juvenile justice. condition the relationship between percep­ of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), Social Science Quarterly, 71(3), 585-601. tions of getting caught and offending? Jour­ 765-823. Silberman, M. (1976). Toward a theory of nal on Research in Crime and Delinquency Paternoster, R., & Piquero, A. R. (1995). Re- criminal deterrence. American Sociological 45(2), 91-118. conceptualizing deterrence: An empirical Review, 41(3), 442-461. Maxwell, S. R., & Gray, M. K. (2000). Deter­ test of personal and vicarious experiences. Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A recon- rence: Testing the effects of perceived Journal on Research in Crime and Delin- ceptualization of general and specific deter- sanction certainty on probation violations. quency, 32(3), 251-286. rence. Journal on Research in Crime and Sociological Inquiry, 70(2), 117-136. Pogarsky, G., Piquero, A. R., & Paternoster, R. Delinquency, 30(2), 123-135. Mendes, S. M. (2004). Certainty, severity, and (2004). Modeling change in perceptions Wright, B. R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & their relative deterrent effects: Questioning about sanction threats: The neglected link- Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived the implications of the role of risk in crimi­ age in deterrence theory. Journal of Quanti- risk of punishment deter criminally prone nal deterrence policy. The Policy Studies tative Criminology, 20(4), 343-369. individuals? Rational choice, self-control Journal, 32(1), 59-74. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, and crime. Journal on Research in Crime Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Endur- L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The em- and Delinquency, 41(2), 180-213.