December 2016 33 An Examination of Deterrence Theory: Where Do We Stand? Kelli D. Tomlinson Tarrant County Adult Community Supervision and Corrections 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 punishment 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 murder criminology, 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 crimes 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 crime. 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 prison 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 punishments 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 law. Beccaria called for laws 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 Cesare Beccaria, an crime but also as a solution to crime (Pratt et how perceptions of these factors do or do not Italian economist and philosopher, 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