1028:
people generally underestimate how severe the sentence will be. Offenders are likely to be well aware that crimes such as assault, robbery, drug dealing, rape and murder will be punished but lack fine-grained knowledge of what the specific penalty is likely to be. A study by
Anderson (2002) found that only 22% of offenders convicted of cultivating cannabis "knew exactly what the penalties would be". That is not surprising given that sentencing is a complex process: what sanction is imposed depends on a number of different factors including the offender's age, previous criminal history, whether or not they plead guilty, their perceived level of remorse, and any other mitigating factors. If a potential offender does not know what punishment will be imposed, that undermines the ability to make a rational choice about whether the potential pain associated with committing a particular crime outweighs the potential gain.
1101:
350,000 offenders. This included studies which compared the impact of prison over community sentences and the impact of longer versus shorter prison sentences on recidivism rates. The results revealed no support for the deterrent effects of punishment. Gendreau wrote: "None of the analyses found imprisonment reduced recidivism. The recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction was similar. In addition, longer sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism. This finding suggests some support for the theory that prison may serve as a ‘school for crime’ for some offenders".
1067:: the severity of the punishment should be roughly proportionate to the gravity of the offending. In a review of the literature, Durrant found that "most systematic reviews of the effects of sentencing severity on crime conclude, with a few exceptions, that there is little or no evidence that increasing the punitiveness of criminal sanctions exerts an effect on offending". This is partly because many offenders get used to being in prison with the result that longer sentences are not necessarily perceived as being more severe than shorter sentences.
1041:
results in a prison sentence. The Home Office (1993) concluded that "the probability of being sent to prison for a crime is about one in 300". In the United States, it has been calculated that only one out of every 100 burglaries leads to a custodial sentence. In regard to drug use, the chances of getting caught are even more remote: less than one in 3,000. If it is unlikely that an offender will actually be caught, let alone punished, there is thus very little certainty of punishment, and any deterrent effect is substantially reduced.
1019:, a neurological disability of the brain. Research has found that it causes "learning disabilities, impulsivity, hyperactivity, social ineptness, poor judgment, and can increase susceptibility to victimization and involvement in the criminal justice system". In fact, youths with FASD are 19 times more likely to be incarcerated than those without FASD in a given year because of their poor decision-making.
46:
1080:
whether, how, under what circumstances, to what extent, for which crimes, at what cost, for which individuals and, perhaps most importantly, in which direction do various aspects of contemporary criminal sanctions affect subsequent criminal behavior. There are extensive reviews of this literature with somewhat conflicting assessments.
1054:
discount the probability of getting caught, particularly for drunk-driving. Durrant concludes: "for any given offence, the chances of actually getting punished by the criminal justice system are quite slim and active criminals are well aware of these favourable odds, thus undermining the potential deterrent effects of punishment".
1142:
A major difficulty in evaluating the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent in the United States is that very few people are actually executed. Fagan (2006) points out that "the rare and somewhat arbitrary use of execution in states (which still have the death penalty) means that it serves
1138:
The death penalty is still retained in some countries, such as in some parts of the United States, one reason being due to the perception that it is a deterrent to certain offenses. In 1975, Ehrlich claimed the death penalty was effective as a general deterrent and that each execution led to seven or
1079:
Measuring and estimating the effects of criminal sanction on subsequent criminal behavior are difficult. Despite numerous studies using a variety of data sources, sanctions, crime types, statistical methods and theoretical approaches, there remains little agreement in the scientific literature about
946:
displayed little of the restraint prescribed by this religious tradition. On the contrary, the level of violence among medieval populations was exceeded only by the force applied by emerging states in their attempts to maintain control and suppress it. Deciding guilt in an offender was more important
819:
Criminal deterrence theory has two possible applications: the first is that punishments imposed on individual offenders will deter or prevent that particular offender from committing further crimes; the second is that public knowledge that certain offences will be punished has a generalised deterrent
1027:
In order for a particular sanction to act as a deterrent, potential offenders must be aware of exactly what punishment they will receive before they commit an offence. However, evidence suggests that few people know what sentence will be imposed for a particular crime and, in the United States, most
1150:
effect, or no effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. Criminologist Daniel Nagin of
Carnegie Mellon said: "Nothing is known about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment." The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date
1088:
Daniel Nagin (1998), one of the leading authorities on the effectiveness of deterrence, believes the collective actions of the criminal justice system exert a very substantial deterrent on the community as a whole. He says it is also his "view that this conclusion is of limited value in formulating
1062:
It is commonly assumed that increasing the severity of punishment increases the potential pain or cost of committing a crime and should therefore make offending less likely. One of the simplest methods to increase the severity is to impose a longer prison term for a particular crime. However, there
863:
is the intention to deter the general public from committing crime by punishing those who do offend. When an offender is punished by, for example, being sent to prison, a clear message is sent to the rest of society that behaviour of this sort will result in an unpleasant response from the criminal
1014:
Many inmates have suffered head injuries, which can lead to loss of impulse control and cognitive impairment. A study in 2010 found that over 60% of prison inmates had experienced a significant head injury. Adults with traumatic brain injury were first sent to prison when quite young and reported
901:
more severely than a lesser crime and a series of crimes more severely than a single crime. The assumption here is that more severe penalties will deter criminals from committing more serious acts and so there is a marginal gain. On the other hand, research by Rupp (2008) shows a pattern in which
1053:
of risk that has the potential to deter offending rather than punishment itself. He cites a study of offenders in which 76% did not think about getting caught or thought the chances of getting caught were slim. Offenders who have successfully got away with certain crimes are especially likely to
1040:
There are usually significant differences between the levels of crime in official statistics and the number of people who report they have been victimised in surveys of crime. In the United
Kingdom, only an estimated 2% of offences lead to a conviction, and only one in seven of those convictions
1100:
A meta-analysis of the deterrent effect of punishment on individual offenders also suggests little benefit is gained from tougher sentences. In 2001 Canadian criminologist, Paul
Gendreau, brought together the results of 50 different studies of the deterrent effect of imprisonment involving over
1070:
Offenders who perceive that sanctions for particular crimes are almost inevitable are less likely to engage in criminal activity. However, because of low apprehension rates in most criminal justice systems, in practice it is much easier to make penalties more severe than it is to make them more
1108:
In a different kind of study, Kuziemko found that when parole was abolished (as a result of which prisoners served their full sentence), that increased the crime rate and the prison population by 10%. This is because prisoners who know they may get out early if they behave are psychologically
1109:
invested in rehabilitation. When parole was eliminated for certain offenders (meaning there was no hope of early release), those prisoners accumulated more disciplinary infractions, completed fewer rehabilitative programs, and re-offended at higher rates than inmates who were released early.
1031:
Another concern is that even if offenders have accurate knowledge about potential penalties, they do not necessarily take that information into account prior to committing a crime. Anderson's study quoted above found that 35% of offenders failed to think about the likely punishment prior to
2017:
Nothing is known about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment... the committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide
1104:
Durrant states that "reviews of 'enhanced punishment' such as boot camps, intensive supervision, 'scared straight' programs, and electronic monitoring are typically consistent with the thesis that increasing the severity of punishment does not act as a significant deterrent to offenders".
1129:
of the punishment. The presence of police officers has also been effective at deterring crime, as criminals in the presence of police officers have a stronger understanding of the certainty of being caught. Seeing handcuffs and a radio are also likely to influence a criminal's behavior.
926:
to aggrieved individuals. Society was cast as victim, not merely bystander, and what had been seen as a dispute between individuals, expanded to an issue of criminal law. For the utilitarians, the purpose of punishment became the protection of society through the prevention of crime.
998:
has found that "prisoners have high rates of psychiatric disorders... Despite the high level of need, these disorders are frequently under-diagnosed and poorly treated". In 2002, a systematic review of 62 different studies from 12 different countries published in
986:, one study found that at least half of all state prisoners are under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their offence. The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics estimates that twenty-six percent of US arrests are related to drug offenses.
856:
is the aim of punishment to discourage the offender from criminal acts in the future. The belief is that when punished, offenders recognise the unpleasant consequences of their actions on themselves and will change their behaviour accordingly.
1546:
Anderson, D. A. (2002). The deterrence hypothesis and picking pockets at the pickpockets hanging. American law and economics review, 4, pp 295-313 cited in
Durrant, R. (2013) An introduction to criminal psychology, Routledge, New York. P.
1112:
Mann et al. (2016) found that internal sanctions such as feeling guilty are stronger than legal sanctions at deterring crime. However, legal sanctions gain strength in situations in which a would-be perpetrator is unlikely to feel guilty.
902:
legal sanctions have stronger deterrent effects for minor crimes than for violent or more serious crimes. Consequently, Rupp (2008) suggests that there is a categorical difference in the factors that deter minor crimes and violent crimes.
918:, formulated the deterrence theory as both an explanation of crime and a method for reducing it. Beccaria argued that crime was not only an attack on an individual but on society as well. That extended the issue of punishment beyond
1725:
1005:
found 65% of men in prison and 42% of women have a personality disorder. Mental health and personality disorders will clearly have an impact of an individual's capacity to make rational decisions about their offending behaviour.
1139:
eight fewer homicides in society. More recent research has failed to find such effects. Durrant (2014) believes that different outcomes achieved by different researchers depend largely on which research model is used.
1089:
policy". He argues that the issue is not whether the criminal justice system in itself prevents or deters crime but whether a new policy, added onto the existing structure, will have any additional deterrent effect.
1976:
Mann H, Garcia-Rada, X, Hornuf L, & Tafurt J. (2016). What Deters Crime? Comparing the
Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries. Frontiers on Psychology. Vol. 7. Article
1952:
Mann H, Garcia-Rada, X, Hornuf L, & Tafurt J. (2016). What Deters Crime? Comparing the
Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries. Frontiers on Psychology. Vol. 7. Article
947:
than the nature of the offense. Once the guilt was announced, the question was not so much whether an execution should take place but how dramatic it should be. There were not many punishments besides
880:
People are able to freely choose their actions and behaviour (as opposed to their offending being driven by socio-economic factors such as unemployment, poverty, limited education and/or addiction).
994:
Research shows that a significant proportion of those in prison have personality disorders or other mental health disorders which affect their ability to make rational decisions. A 2016 study in
831:; how severe the punishment is for a particular crime may influence behavior if the potential offender concludes that the punishment is so severe, it is not worth the risk of getting caught.
1748:
1376:
939:
guideline, although later
Christians interpreted that literally by emphasizing compassion and tolerance, rather than punishment, even to the extent of "turning the other cheek."
2000:
2041:
To read more about severity of punishment in relation to deterrence, see Mendes, M. & McDonald, M. D., “Putting
Severity of Punishment Back in the Deterrence Package” in
1260:
Rupp, T. (2008). Meta
Analysis of Crime and Deterrence: A comprehensive Review of Literature. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadn, Darmstadt. p. 15, 67. & 189.
1645:
1566:
1516:
1270:
1192:
1032:
committing the offence. Durrant (2014) points out that many crimes are impulsive in nature and carried out "in the heat of the moment with little forethought or planning".
765:
1210:
1389:
Williams, WH; Mewse, AJ; Tonks, J; Mills, S; Burgess, CN; Cordan, G (2010). "Traumatic brain injury in a prison population: prevalence and risk for re-offending".
1160:
1151:
on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates".
872:
A key assumption underlying deterrence theory is that offenders weigh up the pros and cons of a certain course of action and make rational choices. Known as
1905:
1784:
889:
The offender is able to calculate whether the pain or severity of the likely punishment outweighs the gain or benefit of getting away with the crime.
382:
1015:
higher rates of repeat offending. Having a head injury also reduces an individual's capacity for rational decision making, and the same goes for
758:
2065:
864:
justice system. Most people do not want to end up in prison and so they are deterred from committing crimes that might be punished that way.
2052:
To read more about the argument concerning who deterrence is aimed at see Beccaria and Bentham's ideas as presented in Moberly, Sir W. H.,
115:
1097:
More recent research by Nagin (2009) found that increased severity of punishment had little deterrent effect on individual offenders.
732:
586:
751:
1642:
1573:
1523:
1277:
1189:
2032:
Hagan, John, A.R. Gillis, and David Brownfield. Criminological Controversies: A Methodical Primer. Boulder: Westview, 1996. 81–3.
1016:
629:
326:
1221:
1146:
A 2012 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect,
566:
546:
120:
827:, by increasing the likelihood of apprehension and punishment, this may have a deterrent effect. The second relates to the
1237:
727:
722:
576:
1832:
Pratt, Travis C.; Cullen, Francis T. (2005). "Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis".
838:
or forward-looking. As with rehabilitation, it is designed to change behaviour in the future rather than simply provide
377:
634:
1170:
541:
266:
217:
130:
100:
1726:"The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues"
1165:
813:
805:
679:
561:
465:
431:
416:
222:
140:
1936:
1815:
684:
90:
2001:"DETERRENCE: National Research Council Concludes Deterrence Studies Should Not Influence Death Penalty Policy"
1469:"Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevalence Estimates in Correctional Systems: A Systematic Literature Review"
1432:
Fast, Diane K.; Conry, Julianne (2009). "Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and the criminal justice system".
801:
571:
406:
212:
150:
1249:
873:
737:
499:
135:
1064:
689:
639:
536:
489:
372:
346:
293:
125:
70:
65:
964:, applied 1400 years ago, the punishment for crimes was public and aimed at general social deterrence.
2081:
659:
654:
644:
596:
556:
551:
514:
458:
367:
261:
95:
1870:, 38, 115-204 cited in Durrant, R. An introduction to criminal psychology. P. 284. Routledge, 2014.
800:. It is one of five objectives that punishment is thought to achieve; the other four objectives are
1963:
1906:"How Should Inmates Be Released From Prison? An Assessment of Parole Versus Fixed Sentence Regimes"
919:
839:
809:
704:
581:
504:
494:
298:
75:
1928:
1849:
1807:
1691:
1414:
1301:
699:
674:
331:
281:
237:
145:
796:
will deter people from committing crime and reduce the probability and/or level of offending in
2086:
1498:
1449:
1406:
1358:
942:
Although most Western populations eventually embraced some version of Judeo-Christian values,
779:
591:
362:
232:
173:
1920:
1841:
1799:
1740:
1683:
1488:
1480:
1441:
1398:
1348:
1340:
1329:"The mental health of prisoners: A review of prevalence, adverse outcomes and interventions"
357:
303:
1143:
no deterrent function, because no would-be murderer can reasonably expect to be executed".
1767:
Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates
1649:
1467:
Popova, Svetlana; Lange, Shannon; Bekmuradov, Dennis; Mihic, Alanna; Rehm, Jürgen (2011).
1196:
943:
911:
823:
Two different aspects of punishment may have an impact on deterrence, the first being the
694:
336:
276:
271:
256:
188:
183:
105:
85:
1493:
1468:
1353:
1328:
936:
915:
453:
80:
1596:
Durrant, R. (2014) An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge, USA. pp. 289–290
1556:
Durrant, R. (2013) An introduction to criminal psychology, Routledge, New York. P. 289
1344:
2075:
1853:
1695:
1671:
1147:
983:
778:
This article is about a legal theory of justice. For coercion in world politics, see
609:
441:
351:
249:
1932:
1811:
1418:
604:
178:
17:
1881:
1660:
Durrant, R. (2014) An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge, USA. P. 291
1623:
Durrant, R. (2014) An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge, USA. P. 284
1614:
Durrant, R. (2014) An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge, USA. P. 290
1605:
Durrant, R. (2014) An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge, USA. P. 290
1402:
1211:"Deterrence in criminal justice: Evaluating certainty vs. severity of punishment"
1063:
are limits to how severe a punishment can be imposed because of the principle of
1687:
1632:
Durrant, R. (2014) An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge, USA. P.290
923:
835:
649:
436:
341:
288:
155:
110:
33:
935:
The history of punishment in reaction to crime began in biblical times with an
45:
1744:
1643:
Deterrence in Criminal Justice Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment
1377:
Serious mental disorder in 23 000 prisoners: a systematic review of 62 surveys
1050:
1001:
793:
669:
664:
470:
1894:
Durrant, R. An introduction to criminal psychology. P. 284. Routledge, 2014.
952:
308:
244:
1502:
1453:
1410:
1362:
1672:"Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction"
1327:
Fazel, S.; Hayes, A. J.; Bartellas, K.; Clerici, M.; Trestman, R. (2016).
1924:
789:
448:
395:
37:
1785:"Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century"
1484:
797:
509:
479:
1125:
that one will be caught is far more effective as a deterrent than the
883:
The offender is capable of assessing the likelihood of getting caught.
426:
60:
1445:
1845:
1803:
1885:, User Report: Office of the Solicitor General, Canada, 1999, p24.
1765:
Blumstein, Alfred; Cohen, Jacqueline; Nagin, Daniel, eds. (1978).
948:
898:
421:
202:
897:, based on the belief that it is prudent to punish a more severe
960:
886:
The offender knows the likely punishment that will be received.
2045:, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 588-610, and Moberly, Sir W. H.,
1302:"Drug Related Crime Statistics: Offenses Involving Drug Use"
27:
Use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending
1866:
Nagin, DS et al. (2009) Imprisonment and reoffending.
1161:
Capital punishment and deterrence in the United States
820:
effect which prevents others from committing crimes.
834:
An underlying principle of deterrence is that it is
910:Two utilitarian philosophers of the 18th century,
1769:. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
1709:Zimring, Franklin E.; Hawkins, Gordon J. (1973).
1308:. National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics. 2023
788:in relation to criminal offending is the idea or
1250:A Note on Marginal Deterrence, by Steven Shavell
850:There are two main goals of deterrence theory.
1882:The Effects of Prison Sentences On Recidivism
1711:Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control
842:or punishment for current or past behaviour.
759:
8:
1778:
1776:
1676:Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
1434:Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews
893:Other assumptions relate to the concept of
766:
752:
400:
29:
1492:
1352:
1713:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1199:, The Sentencing Project, November 2010
1181:
478:
32:
1988:An Introduction to Criminal Psychology
1049:Durrant (2014) argues that it is the
7:
2068:Statistical information and studies
1879:Gendreau, P, Goggin, C, Cullen FT,
1379:, DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07740-1
1986:Fagan (2006) cited in Durrant, R.
1375:Fazel, S. & Danesh, J. (2002)
25:
1473:Canadian Journal of Public Health
1209:Wright, Valerie (November 2010).
990:Impact of mental health disorders
808:(for the protection of society),
2066:Deterrence and the Death Penalty
2005:Death Penalty Information Center
1567:"Deterrence in Criminal Justice"
1517:"Deterrence in Criminal Justice"
1271:"Deterrence in Criminal Justice"
121:Risk & actuarial criminology
44:
1036:Lack of certainty of punishment
1017:Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
1964:"Five Things About Deterrence"
1913:Quarterly Journal of Economics
1190:Deterrence in Criminal Justice
1023:Knowledge of likely punishment
876:, it assumes the following:
1:
1724:Paternoster, Raymond (1987).
1670:Sherman, Lawrence J. (1993).
1345:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30142-0
1403:10.3109/02699052.2010.495697
1688:10.1177/0022427893030004006
1240:, Criminal Justice website.
978:Impact of alcohol and drugs
2103:
1990:. P. 285. Routledge, 2014.
1171:Mutual assured destruction
1093:As an individual deterrent
777:
101:Expressive function of law
1904:Kuziemko, Ilyana (2013).
1745:10.1080/07418828700089271
1166:Rehabilitation (penology)
958:In the Islamic system of
2054:The Ethics of Punishment
2047:The Ethics of Punishment
91:Differential association
1117:Likelihood vs. severity
825:certainty of punishment
151:Symbolic interactionism
2043:Policy Studies Journal
1783:Nagin, Daniel (1998).
1333:The Lancet. Psychiatry
1238:Rational Choice Theory
1218:The Sentencing Project
1084:As a general deterrent
1058:Certainty vs. severity
1010:Impact of brain injury
874:rational choice theory
868:Underlying assumptions
829:severity of punishment
131:Social disorganization
1220:: 1–9. Archived from
854:Individual deterrence
640:Biosocial criminology
347:Uniform Crime Reports
66:Biosocial criminology
515:Solitary confinement
1045:Perceptions of risk
973:Lack of rationality
906:Philosophical basis
895:marginal deterrence
792:that the threat of
705:Radical criminology
76:Collective efficacy
1925:10.1093/qje/qjs052
1648:2019-11-12 at the
1641:Wright, V. (2010)
1485:10.1007/BF03404172
1195:2019-11-12 at the
861:General deterrence
18:General deterrence
1868:Crime and Justice
1834:Crime and Justice
1792:Crime and Justice
1733:Justice Quarterly
996:Lancet Psychiatry
780:Deterrence theory
776:
775:
522:
521:
459:Prisoners' rights
363:Positivist school
16:(Redirected from
2094:
2021:
2020:
2014:
2012:
1997:
1991:
1984:
1978:
1974:
1968:
1967:
1960:
1954:
1950:
1944:
1943:
1941:
1935:. Archived from
1910:
1901:
1895:
1892:
1886:
1877:
1871:
1864:
1858:
1857:
1829:
1823:
1822:
1820:
1814:. Archived from
1789:
1780:
1771:
1770:
1762:
1756:
1755:
1753:
1747:. Archived from
1730:
1721:
1715:
1714:
1706:
1700:
1699:
1667:
1661:
1658:
1652:
1639:
1633:
1630:
1624:
1621:
1615:
1612:
1606:
1603:
1597:
1594:
1588:
1587:
1585:
1584:
1578:
1572:. Archived from
1571:
1563:
1557:
1554:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1537:
1535:
1534:
1528:
1522:. Archived from
1521:
1513:
1507:
1506:
1496:
1464:
1458:
1457:
1429:
1423:
1422:
1386:
1380:
1373:
1367:
1366:
1356:
1324:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1313:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1289:
1288:
1282:
1276:. Archived from
1275:
1267:
1261:
1258:
1252:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1229:
1228:
1226:
1215:
1206:
1200:
1188:Valerie Wright,
1186:
968:Evidential flaws
768:
761:
754:
401:
358:Crime statistics
284:
48:
30:
21:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2072:
2071:
2062:
2039:
2037:Further reading
2029:
2024:
2010:
2008:
2007:. 18 April 2012
1999:
1998:
1994:
1985:
1981:
1975:
1971:
1966:. June 5, 2016.
1962:
1961:
1957:
1951:
1947:
1939:
1908:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1893:
1889:
1878:
1874:
1865:
1861:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1818:
1787:
1782:
1781:
1774:
1764:
1763:
1759:
1751:
1728:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1659:
1655:
1650:Wayback Machine
1640:
1636:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1591:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1545:
1541:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1446:10.1002/ddrr.66
1431:
1430:
1426:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1374:
1370:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1311:
1309:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1255:
1248:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1224:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1197:Wayback Machine
1187:
1183:
1179:
1157:
1136:
1119:
1095:
1086:
1077:
1065:proportionality
1060:
1047:
1038:
1025:
1012:
992:
980:
975:
970:
944:Medieval Europe
933:
931:Religious basis
912:Cesare Beccaria
908:
870:
848:
783:
772:
743:
742:
718:
710:
709:
635:Anthropological
625:
617:
616:
532:
524:
523:
398:
388:
387:
337:Critical theory
322:
314:
313:
294:State-corporate
282:
205:
194:
193:
189:Archibald Reiss
184:Cesare Lombroso
169:
168:Major theorists
161:
160:
136:Social learning
116:Rational choice
106:Labeling theory
86:Criminalization
56:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2100:
2098:
2090:
2089:
2084:
2074:
2073:
2070:
2069:
2061:
2060:External links
2058:
2038:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2022:
1992:
1979:
1969:
1955:
1945:
1942:on 2020-04-10.
1919:(1): 371–424.
1896:
1887:
1872:
1859:
1846:10.1086/655357
1824:
1821:on 2016-10-05.
1804:10.1086/449268
1772:
1757:
1754:on 2017-08-08.
1739:(2): 173–217.
1716:
1701:
1682:(4): 445–473.
1662:
1653:
1634:
1625:
1616:
1607:
1598:
1589:
1558:
1549:
1539:
1508:
1479:(5): 336–340.
1459:
1440:(3): 250–257.
1424:
1397:(10): 1184–8.
1381:
1368:
1339:(9): 871–881.
1319:
1293:
1262:
1253:
1242:
1230:
1227:on 2017-11-30.
1201:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1156:
1153:
1135:
1132:
1121:The perceived
1118:
1115:
1094:
1091:
1085:
1082:
1076:
1073:
1059:
1056:
1046:
1043:
1037:
1034:
1024:
1021:
1011:
1008:
991:
988:
979:
976:
974:
971:
969:
966:
937:eye for an eye
932:
929:
916:Jeremy Bentham
907:
904:
891:
890:
887:
884:
881:
869:
866:
847:
844:
814:rehabilitation
806:incapacitation
774:
773:
771:
770:
763:
756:
748:
745:
744:
741:
740:
735:
730:
725:
719:
716:
715:
712:
711:
708:
707:
702:
697:
692:
690:Organizational
687:
682:
677:
672:
667:
662:
657:
652:
647:
642:
637:
632:
626:
623:
622:
619:
618:
615:
614:
613:
612:
607:
599:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
544:
539:
533:
530:
529:
526:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
512:
507:
502:
500:Transformative
497:
492:
484:
483:
476:
475:
474:
473:
468:
466:Rehabilitation
463:
462:
461:
456:
454:Prisoner abuse
446:
445:
444:
439:
434:
424:
419:
417:Incapacitation
414:
409:
399:
394:
393:
390:
389:
386:
385:
380:
375:
370:
365:
360:
355:
349:
344:
339:
334:
329:
323:
320:
319:
316:
315:
312:
311:
306:
301:
296:
291:
286:
279:
274:
269:
264:
259:
254:
253:
252:
242:
241:
240:
235:
227:
226:
225:
220:
215:
206:
200:
199:
196:
195:
192:
191:
186:
181:
176:
174:Émile Durkheim
170:
167:
166:
163:
162:
159:
158:
153:
148:
143:
138:
133:
128:
126:Social control
123:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
81:Crime analysis
78:
73:
71:Broken windows
68:
63:
57:
54:
53:
50:
49:
41:
40:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2099:
2088:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2079:
2077:
2067:
2064:
2063:
2059:
2057:
2055:
2050:
2048:
2044:
2036:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2019:
2006:
2002:
1996:
1993:
1989:
1983:
1980:
1973:
1970:
1965:
1959:
1956:
1949:
1946:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1907:
1900:
1897:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1883:
1876:
1873:
1869:
1863:
1860:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1828:
1825:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1786:
1779:
1777:
1773:
1768:
1761:
1758:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1727:
1720:
1717:
1712:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1666:
1663:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1638:
1635:
1629:
1626:
1620:
1617:
1611:
1608:
1602:
1599:
1593:
1590:
1579:on 2019-11-12
1575:
1568:
1562:
1559:
1553:
1550:
1543:
1540:
1529:on 2019-11-12
1525:
1518:
1512:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1463:
1460:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1372:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1323:
1320:
1307:
1303:
1297:
1294:
1283:on 2019-11-12
1279:
1272:
1266:
1263:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1231:
1223:
1219:
1212:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1185:
1182:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1148:brutalization
1144:
1140:
1134:Death penalty
1133:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1090:
1083:
1081:
1075:Effectiveness
1074:
1072:
1068:
1066:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1044:
1042:
1035:
1033:
1029:
1022:
1020:
1018:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1003:
997:
989:
987:
985:
984:United States
977:
972:
967:
965:
963:
962:
956:
954:
950:
945:
940:
938:
930:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
905:
903:
900:
896:
888:
885:
882:
879:
878:
877:
875:
867:
865:
862:
858:
855:
851:
845:
843:
841:
837:
832:
830:
826:
821:
817:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
781:
769:
764:
762:
757:
755:
750:
749:
747:
746:
739:
736:
734:
733:Organizations
731:
729:
726:
724:
721:
720:
714:
713:
706:
703:
701:
698:
696:
693:
691:
688:
686:
683:
681:
680:Environmental
678:
676:
673:
671:
668:
666:
663:
661:
658:
656:
653:
651:
648:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
627:
621:
620:
611:
608:
606:
603:
602:
600:
598:
597:Postmodernist
595:
593:
590:
588:
587:Neo-classical
585:
583:
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
562:Environmental
560:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
543:
540:
538:
535:
534:
528:
527:
516:
513:
511:
508:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
493:
491:
490:Participatory
488:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
472:
469:
467:
464:
460:
457:
455:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
433:
430:
429:
428:
425:
423:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
404:
403:
402:
397:
392:
391:
384:
381:
379:
376:
374:
371:
369:
366:
364:
361:
359:
356:
353:
352:Crime mapping
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
324:
318:
317:
310:
307:
305:
302:
300:
299:Transnational
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
268:
267:International
265:
263:
260:
258:
255:
251:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
236:
234:
231:
230:
228:
224:
221:
219:
216:
214:
211:
210:
208:
207:
204:
198:
197:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
171:
165:
164:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
51:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
31:
19:
2053:
2051:
2046:
2042:
2040:
2027:Bibliography
2016:
2009:. Retrieved
2004:
1995:
1987:
1982:
1972:
1958:
1948:
1937:the original
1916:
1912:
1899:
1890:
1880:
1875:
1867:
1862:
1837:
1833:
1827:
1816:the original
1795:
1791:
1766:
1760:
1749:the original
1736:
1732:
1719:
1710:
1704:
1679:
1675:
1665:
1656:
1637:
1628:
1619:
1610:
1601:
1592:
1581:. Retrieved
1574:the original
1561:
1552:
1542:
1531:. Retrieved
1524:the original
1511:
1476:
1472:
1462:
1437:
1433:
1427:
1394:
1390:
1384:
1371:
1336:
1332:
1322:
1310:. Retrieved
1305:
1296:
1285:. Retrieved
1278:the original
1265:
1256:
1245:
1233:
1222:the original
1217:
1204:
1184:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1087:
1078:
1069:
1061:
1048:
1039:
1030:
1026:
1013:
1000:
995:
993:
981:
959:
957:
941:
934:
909:
894:
892:
871:
860:
859:
853:
852:
849:
833:
828:
824:
822:
818:
802:denunciation
785:
784:
685:Experimental
411:
407:Denunciation
373:Quantitative
283:Public-order
238:White-collar
179:Hans Eysenck
2082:Criminology
1840:: 373–450.
1312:26 February
924:restitution
920:retribution
840:retribution
836:utilitarian
810:retribution
675:Development
650:Criminology
572:Integrative
510:Utilitarian
505:Retributive
495:Restorative
482:in penology
368:Qualitative
342:Ethnography
327:Comparative
233:Blue-collar
156:Victimology
111:Psychopathy
34:Criminology
2076:Categories
1583:2019-04-16
1533:2019-04-16
1287:2019-04-16
1177:References
1123:likelihood
1051:perception
1002:The Lancet
846:Categories
794:punishment
786:Deterrence
670:Demography
592:Positivist
471:Recidivism
412:Deterrence
304:Victimless
146:Subculture
1854:146431029
1696:146171795
1391:Brain Inj
1071:certain.
953:execution
695:Political
624:Subfields
547:Classical
537:Anarchist
432:abolition
332:Profiling
277:Political
272:Organized
257:Corporate
245:Cold case
201:Types of
2087:Penology
2011:17 April
1933:10582320
1812:52063528
1798:: 1–42.
1646:Archived
1503:22032097
1454:19731365
1419:23690018
1411:20642322
1363:27426440
1193:Archived
1155:See also
1127:severity
728:Journals
655:Critical
645:Conflict
630:American
601:Realism
567:Feminist
557:Critical
552:Conflict
449:Prisoner
396:Penology
262:Juvenile
213:Humanity
209:Against
96:Deviance
38:penology
1494:6973953
1354:5008459
982:In the
798:society
660:Culture
582:Marxist
577:Italian
542:Chicago
531:Schools
480:Justice
321:Methods
250:Perfect
1931:
1852:
1810:
1694:
1501:
1491:
1452:
1417:
1409:
1361:
1351:
790:theory
738:People
717:Browse
700:Public
442:reform
427:Prison
229:Class
218:Person
141:Strain
61:Anomie
55:Theory
2018:rates
1940:(PDF)
1929:S2CID
1909:(PDF)
1850:S2CID
1819:(PDF)
1808:S2CID
1788:(PDF)
1752:(PDF)
1729:(PDF)
1692:S2CID
1577:(PDF)
1570:(PDF)
1527:(PDF)
1520:(PDF)
1415:S2CID
1306:NCDAS
1281:(PDF)
1274:(PDF)
1225:(PDF)
1214:(PDF)
949:exile
899:crime
723:Index
665:Cyber
610:Right
422:Trial
383:NIBRS
289:State
223:State
203:crime
2013:2022
1547:288.
1499:PMID
1450:PMID
1407:PMID
1359:PMID
1314:2024
961:hadd
951:and
922:and
914:and
812:and
605:Left
437:open
36:and
1977:85.
1953:85.
1921:doi
1917:128
1842:doi
1800:doi
1741:doi
1684:doi
1489:PMC
1481:doi
1477:102
1442:doi
1399:doi
1349:PMC
1341:doi
378:BJS
309:War
2078::
2056:.
2049:.
2015:.
2003:.
1927:.
1915:.
1911:.
1848:.
1838:32
1836:.
1806:.
1796:23
1794:.
1790:.
1775:^
1735:.
1731:.
1690:.
1680:30
1678:.
1674:.
1497:.
1487:.
1475:.
1471:.
1448:.
1438:15
1436:.
1413:.
1405:.
1395:24
1393:.
1357:.
1347:.
1335:.
1331:.
1304:.
1216:.
955:.
816:.
804:,
1923::
1856:.
1844::
1802::
1743::
1737:4
1698:.
1686::
1586:.
1536:.
1505:.
1483::
1456:.
1444::
1421:.
1401::
1365:.
1343::
1337:3
1316:.
1290:.
782:.
767:e
760:t
753:v
354:]
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
