![]() The fourth involves sanction risk perceptions. 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 third concerns the concept of a sanction regime defined by the sanctions legally available and how that legal authority is administered. 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 first concerns the mechanism by which police affect perceptions of the probability of apprehension. This conclusion has important policy implications among which are that lengthy prison sentences and mandatory minimum sentencing cannot be justified on deterrence. ![]() Consequently, the more precise statement is that certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent. ![]() However, the evidence in support of certainty’s effect pertains almost exclusively to apprehension probability. AbstractThe evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is far more consistent than that for the severity of punishment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |