D-Bosworth.qxd 11/15/2004 7:30 PM Page 233 Deterrence Theory———233 American Friends Service Committee. (1971). Struggle for justice. New York: Hill and Wang. DETERRENCE THEORY Ashworth, A. (1992). Sentencing reform structures. In Proponents of deterrence believe that people choose M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 16). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. to obey or violate the law after calculating the Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing opti- gains and consequences of their actions. Overall, mistic and pessimistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime however, it is difficult to prove the effectiveness of and justice: A review of research (Vol. 25). Chicago: deterrence since only those offenders not deterred University of Chicago Press. come to the notice of law enforcement. Thus, we Engen, R., Gainey, R., Crutchfield, R., & Weis, J. (2003). may never know why others do not offend. Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41, 99–130. GENERAL AND Goodstein, L., & Hepburn, J. (1985). Determinate sentencing and imprisonment: A failure of reform. Cincinnati, OH: SPECIFIC DETERRENCE Anderson. There are two basic types of deterrence—general Griset, P. (1991). Determinate sentencing: The promise and the reality of retributive justice. Albany: State University and specific. General deterrence is designed to of New York Press. prevent crime in the general population. Thus, the Harris, M. K. (1991). Moving into the new millennium: state’s punishment of offenders serves as an Toward a feminist vision of justice. In H. Pepinsky & example for others in the general population who R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminology as peacemaking have not yet participated in criminal events. It is (pp. 83–97). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. meant to make them aware of the horrors of official Morris, R. (1995). Penal abolition, the practical choice: A practical manual on penal abolition. Toronto: Canadian sanctions in order to put them off committing Scholars’ Press. crimes. Examples include the application of the Shane-DuBow, S., Brown, A., & Olsen, E. (1985). Sentencing death penalty and the use of corporal punishment. reform in the United States: History, content, and effect. Since general deterrence is designed to deter Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. those who witness the infliction of pains upon the Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (2001). Restorative justice: Healing convicted from committing crimes themselves, the foundations of our everyday lives. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree. corporal punishment was traditionally, and in some Taylor, I. (1999). Crime in context: A critical criminology of places is still, carried out in public so that others market societies. Boulder, CO: Westview. can witness the pain. Although outlawed in the Thomson, D. (1987). Probation in the USA. In J. Harding United States, public punishment is still used in (Ed.), Probation and the community. London: Tavistock. other countries. For instance, in August 2001, Tonry, M. ([1988]1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Nigeria introduced shari’a, or Islamic law, that Oxford University Press. Tonry, M. (1999). Reconsidering indeterminate and structured allows the application of corporal punishment. sentencing. In Sentencing & corrections issues for the That same month, Iran sentenced 20 people to be 21st century (Papers from the Executive Sessions on caned for consuming alcohol. In November 2001, Sentencing and Corrections, No. 2). Washington, DC: Saudi Arabia lashed 55 youths for harassing U.S. Department of Justice. women. Likewise, Human Rights Watch reports Tonry, M., & Hatlestad, K. (Eds.). (1997). Sentencing reform that under Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, those in overcrowded times: A comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. who violated military orders or committed other Wright, R. (2002). Counting the cost of sentencing in North crimes could be punished by amputation of arms, Carolina, 1980–2000. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and legs, and ears. Finally, in England and the United justice: A review of research (Vol. 29). Chicago: University States, hangings were once carried out in public. of Chicago. The public and family members were allowed to attend so that they could see what happened to Legal Cases those who broke the law. Today, some advocates In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). call for televised executions as a way of deterring Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). murder. D-Bosworth.qxd 11/15/2004 7:30 PM Page 234 234———Deterrence Theory Specific deterrence is designed—by the nature of due to the alienation and exclusion of some the proscribed sanctions—to deter only the individ- members of society. To avoid this, people agree to ual offender from committing that crime in the give up their own egocentricity as long as everyone future. Proponents of specific deterrence also does the same thing approximately. This is what believe that punishing offenders severely will make Hobbes termed the social contract. To avoid war, them unwilling to reoffend in the future. A drunk conflict, and crime, people enter into a social con- driver, for example, would be deterred from drink- tract with the government so that it will protect ing and driving because of the unpleasant experi- them from human predicaments. The role of the ence he or she suffered from being arrested, or state is to enforce the social contract. Hobbes having his or her license taken away or his or her car indicated that if one agrees to the social contract, impounded. The state must apply enough pain to that individual authorizes the sovereign to use force offset the amount of pleasure derived from drinking. to uphold the social contract. But crimes may still occur even if after governments perform their duties. In this case, Hobbes argued that the punish- EARLY CLASSICAL ment for crime must be greater than the benefit that PHILOSOPHERS OF DETERRENCE THEORY comes from committing the crime. Deterrence is The deterrence theory of punishment can be traced the reason individuals are punished for violating the to the early works of classical philosophers such social contract, and it serves to maintain the agree- as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1678), Cesare Beccaria ment between the state and the people in the form (1738–1794), and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). of a workable social contract. Together, these theorists protested against the legal policies that had dominated European thought for Cesare Beccaria more than a thousand years, and against the spiritu- Building on the ideals of the social contract alistic explanations of crime on which they were philosophers, in 1764, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese founded. In addition, these social contract thinkers Beccaria, published his treatise, Dei Delitti e delle provided the foundation for modern deterrence Pene (On Crimes and Punishments), in which he theory in criminology. challenged the rights of the state to punish crimes. He followed Hobbes and other 18th-century Thomas Hobbes Enlightenment writers that laws should be judged In Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes by their propensity to afford the “greatest happiness described men as neither good nor bad. Unlike shared by the greatest number” (Beccaria, 1963, religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who insisted p. 8). Since people are rationally self-interested, that people naturally do good rather than evil, they will not commit crimes if the costs of commit- Hobbes assumed that men are creatures of their ting crimes prevail over the benefits of engaging own volition who want certain things and who fight in undesirable acts. If the sole purpose of punish- when their desires are in conflict. In the Hobbesian ment is to prevent crime in society, Beccaria (1963) view, people generally pursue their self-interests, argued, “punishments are unjust when their severity such as material gain, personal safety, and social exceeds what is necessary to achieve deterrence” reputation, and make enemies without caring if they (p. 14). Excessive severity will not reduce crime, harm others in the process. Since people are deter- in other words, it will only increase crime. In mined to achieve their self-interests, the result Beccaria’s view, swift and certain punishment are is often conflict and resistance without a fitting the best means of preventing and controlling crime; government to maintain safety. punishment for any other reason is capricious, Hobbes also pointed out that humans are rational superfluous, and repressive. enough to realize that the self-interested nature of Beccaria and the classical theorists believed that people would lead to crime and inevitable conflict humans are rational beings with free will to govern D-Bosworth.qxd 11/15/2004 7:30 PM Page 235 Deterrence Theory———235 their own decisions. Indeed, he emphasized that barbarities found in the criminal codes of his time laws should be published so that people may know in England. Noting that all punishment is mischief, what they represent—their intent, as well as their he maintained, also, that all penalties, per se, are purpose. Basing the legitimacy of criminal sanc- evil unless punishment is used to avert greater evil, tions on the social contract, Beccaria (1963) called or to control the action of offenders. In short, the laws “the conditions under which men, naturally object of the law is to widen the happiness of the independent, united themselves in society” (p. 11). people by increasing the pleasure and lessening He was against torture and secret accusations, and the pain of the community. Punishment, in excess demanded they be abolished. Furthermore, he of what is essential to deter people from violating rejected the use of capital punishment and sug- the law, is unjustified. gested that it be replaced by imprisonment. According to Beccaria, jails should be more SEVERITY, CERTAINTY, humane and the law should not distinguish between AND CELERITY OF PUNISHMENT the rich and the poor. Judges should determine guilt and the application of the law, rather than the spirit The theory of deterrence that has developed from of the law.