English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

While the presumed deterrent effect of punishment provides the cornerstone of our criminal justice system, it would be a mistake to assume that deterrence is well established in theory and research. As Gibbs, Ball,2 Puttkammer3 and others have pointed out, despite the length and intensity of the deterrence controversy, much of the debate has been of a moral and ideological nature with few of the protagonists providing any systematic evidence in support of their positions. Moreover, Tittle4 concludes that much of the evidence cited is inadequate or inappropriate to the question at issue. This is a regrettable situation for much of the deterrence question is clearly amenable to empirical investigations. Until recent years, most deterrence investigations have focused primarily upon homicide and the death penalty. These investigations have led most investigators to accept what Sellin has termed the inevitable conclusion: "the presence of the death penalty -in law or practice-does not influence homicide death rates." 5 Not all seem willing to accept this as the "inevitable conclusion," however. Examination of most capital punishment investigations reveals that they suffer from serious theoretical and methodological limitations. In addition, it is highly questionable to assume, as many criminologists have, that results of death penalty investigations may be generalized to noncapital offenses and other forms of punishment. Recognizing the limitations of death penalty research, a few investigators have examined imprisonment as an alternative form of punishment, and offenses other than homicide. Although the offenses, time periods and punishment variables differ slightly in these investigations, results suggest (1) a substantial inverse correlation between certainty of imprisonment and the state's index offense rate, and (2) a less subst ntial negative correlation (and in some cases a low, positive correlation) between severity of prison sentence and rate variables. 6 While these investigations have contributed greatly to a better understanding of deterrence, they too are not without limitations. First, these studies have typically made use of notoriously inaccurate police and prisoner statistics in constructing punishment and rate indexes. Second, the punishment measures used rest upon the assumption that the actual punishment practices in a jurisdiction provide a reasonably good indicator of the residents' perceptions of the severity of legal sanctions. Although the evidence is meager, this assumption appears highly questionable.7 Likewise, persons may be equally unaware of the proportion of offenses that result in arrest and conviction, that is, the certainty of punishment.

Crime, Punishment and Personality: An Examination of the Deterrence Question