journal article Show Crime and Justice Vol. 42, No. 1, Crime and Justice in America 1975–2025 (August 2013) , pp. 199-263 (65 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press https://doi.org/10.1086/670398 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670398 This is a preview. Log in to get access Abstract AbstractThe evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is far more consistent than that for the severity of punishment. However, the evidence in support of certainty’s effect pertains almost exclusively to apprehension probability. Consequently, the more precise statement is that certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent. This conclusion has important policy implications among which are that lengthy prison sentences and mandatory minimum sentencing cannot be justified on deterrence. There are four major research gaps. The first concerns the mechanism by which police affect perceptions of the probability of apprehension. The second concerns the inextricable link between the deterrent effect of the threat of punishment and the potentially criminogenic effect of the experience of punishment. The third concerns the concept of a sanction regime defined by the sanctions legally available and how that legal authority is administered. Theories of deterrence conceive of sanctions in the singular, not the plural, and do not provide a conceptual basis for considering the differential deterrent effects of different components of the sanction regime. The fourth involves sanction risk perceptions. Establishing the link between risk perceptions and sanction regimes is imperative; unless perceptions adjust, however crudely, to changes in the sanction regime, desired deterrent effects will not be achieved. Journal Information Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.Since 1979, the Crime and Justice series has presented a review of the latest international research, providing expertise to enhance the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists. The series explores a full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and its cures. In both the review and the thematic volumes, Crime and Justice offers an interdisciplinary approach to address core issue in criminology. Publisher Information Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. journal article Perceptual Research on General Deterrence: A Critical ReviewLaw & Society Review Vol. 20, No. 4 (1986) , pp. 545-572 (28 pages) Published By: Wiley https://doi.org/10.2307/3053466 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053466 This is a preview. Log in to get access Abstract Recent perceptual studies of general deterrence have been guided by an unnecessarily narrow conception of general deterrence, despite the methodological advances in this type of research. These studies, moreover, have failed to recognize the complexity of the perceptual processes that intervene between the threat or experience of legal sanctions and behavioral outcomes. Consequently, the conclusions drawn from the findings about the process of general deterrence are questionable. This paper critically reviews perceptual studies of general deterrence with a view toward expanding the scope of deterrence theory and stimulating research in new directions. Suggestions are made about the kinds of data and analyses needed to test such theory more adequately. Journal Information Founded in 1966, Law & Society Review is regarded by sociolegal scholars worldwide as a leading journal in the field. The Review is a peer-reviewed publication for scholarship bearing on the relationship between society and the legal process, including articles or notes of interest to the research community in general, new theoretical developments, results of empirical studies, and reviews and comments on the field or its methods of inquiry. Broadly interdisciplinary, the Review welcomes work from any tradition of scholarship concerned with the cultural, economic, political, psychological, or social aspects of law and legal systems. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of Law and Society Review. The electronic version of Law and Society Review is available at http://www.interscience.wiley.com. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site. Publisher Information Wiley is a global provider of content and content-enabled workflow solutions in areas of scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly research; professional development; and education. Our core businesses produce scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, reference works, books, database services, and advertising; professional books, subscription products, certification and training services and online applications; and education content and services including integrated online teaching and learning resources for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. has been a valued source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people around the world meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. Wiley has published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in all categories: Literature, Economics, Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace. Wiley has partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies and publishes over 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols in STMS subjects. With a growing open access offering, Wiley is committed to the widest possible dissemination of and access to the content we publish and supports all sustainable models of access. Our online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Which element is the least important to deterrence?Celerity—meaning the swiftness of punishment—is arguably the most overlooked element of deterrence theory.
What are the 3 elements of deterrence?In the criminal deterrence literature, three elements, combined, produce an expected cost of punishment: the probability of arrest, the probability of conviction, and the severity of punishment.
What is the most important element of deterrence theory?First, by making certain, or at least making the public think that their offenses are not going to go unpunished, then there will be a deterrent factor. As Beccaria relates, this is the most important of these three elements within deterrence theory.
What element of deterrence according to Beccaria is the most important?According to the text, which element of deterrence did Beccaria believe was the most important in making sure individuals would be deterred from committing crimes: Swiftness of punishment.
|
According to the most common interpretations which element is the least important to deterrence
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.apacode Inc.
