Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-03T15:07:52.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Deterrence Perceptions

from Part II - Deterrence and Incapacitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

By
Robert J. Apel
Edited by
Benjamin van Rooij  and
D. Daniel Sokol
Benjamin van Rooij
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Amsterdam
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

Abstract: The perceptual features of criminal penalties are crucial to their capacity to deter, at least in theory. This chapter devotes attention to the accuracy of people’s perceptions about criminal penalties. The empirical findings from so-called perceptual calibration studies are summarized, focused on people’s understanding of the statutory applicability of criminal sanctions, as well as the certainty and severity of punishments applied in practice. While the average citizen is reasonably well informed about what criminal penalties are statutorily allowed, he or she does a poor job estimating the probability and magnitude of the penalties. On the other hand, studies which inquire about more common offenses (alcohol and marijuana use) from more crime-prone populations (young people, offenders) reveal that perceptions are consistently better calibrated to actual punishments.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 236 - 244
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Apel, Robert. 2013. “Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29:67–101.Google Scholar
Barragan, Melissa, Chesnut, Kelsie Y., Gravel, Jason, Pifer, Natalie A., Reiter, Keramet, Sherman, Nicole, and Tita, George. 2017. “Prohibited Possessors and the Law: How Inmates in Los Angeles Jails Understand Firearm and Ammunition Regulations.” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 3:141–63.Google Scholar
Beccaria, Cesare. [1764] 1963. On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by Paolucci, Henry. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claster, Daniel S. 1967. “Comparison of Risk Perception between Delinquents and Non-delinquents.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 58:80–6.Google Scholar
Committee on Criminal Procedure. 1968. Deterrent Effects of Criminal Sanctions. Sacramento: Assembly of the State of California.Google Scholar
Erickson, Maynard L., and Gibbs, Jack P.. 1978. “Objective and Perceptual Properties of Legal Punishment and the Deterrence Doctrine.” Social Problems 25:253–64.Google Scholar
Geerken, Michael R., and Gove, Walter R.. 1975. “Deterrence: Some Theoretical Considerations.” Law and Society Review 9:497–513.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jack P. 1975. Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Grube, Joel W., and Kearney, Kathleen A.. 1983. “A ‘Mandatory’ Jail Sentence for Drinking and Driving.” Evaluation Review 7:235–46.Google Scholar
Jensen, Gary F. 1969. “Crime Doesn’t Pay: Correlates of a Shared Misunderstanding.” Social Problems 17:189–201.Google Scholar
Johnston, Lloyd D., O’Malley, Patrick M., and Bachman, Jerald G.. 1981. “Cannabis Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975–1980.” Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper no. 13. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Kleck, Gary, Sever, Brion, Li, Spencer, and Gertz, Marc. 2005. “The Missing Link in General Deterrence Research.” Criminology 43:623–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCoun, Robert, Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Chriqui, Jamie, Harris, Katherine, and Reuter, Peter. 2009. “Do Citizens Know Whether Their State Has Decriminalized Marijuana? Assessing the Perceptual Component of Deterrence Theory.” Review of Law and Economics 5:347–71.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 2004. “Measuring Expectations.” Econometrica 72:1329–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin, Daniel S. 1998. “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century.” In Tonry, Michael (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 23 (pp. 1–42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Piliavin, Irving, Thornton, Craig, Gartner, Rosemary, and Matsueda, Ross L.. 1986. “Crime, Deterrence, and Rational Choice.” American Sociological Review 51:101–19.Google Scholar
Pogarsky, Greg. 2002. “Identifying ‘Deterrable’ Offenders: Implications for Research on Deterrence.” Justice Quarterly 19:431–52.Google Scholar
Ross, H. Laurence. 1973. “Law, Science, and Accidents: The British Road Safety Act of 1967.” Journal of Legal Studies 2:1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, H. Laurence. 1982. Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy and Social Control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Ross, H. Laurence. 1992. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policies for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, H. Laurence, and Voas, Robert B.. 1990. “The New Philadelphia Story: The Effects of Severe Punishment for Drunk Driving.” Law and Policy 12:51–79.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. 1990. “Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence.” In Tonry, Michael and Morris, Norval (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 12 (pp. 1–48). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Waldo, Gordon P., and Chiricos, Theodore G.. 1972. “Perceived Penal Sanction and Self-Reported Criminality: A Neglected Approach to Deterrence Research.” Social Problems 19:522–40.Google Scholar
Williams, Kirk R., and Gibbs, Jack P.. 1981. “Deterrence and Knowledge of Statutory Penalties.” Sociological Quarterly 22:591–606.Google Scholar
Williams, Kirk R., Gibbs, Jack P., and Erickson, Maynard L.. 1980. “Public Knowledge of Statutory Penalties: The Extent and Basis of Accurate Perception.” Pacific Sociological Review 23:105–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimring, Frank, and Hawkins, Gordon. 1968. “Deterrence and Marginal Groups.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2:100–14.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E., and Hawkins, Gordon J.. 1973. Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×