NCJ Number
86557
Journal
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Dated: (April 1982) Pages: 587-605
Date Published
1982
Length
19 pages
Annotation
An examination of deterrence by the director of a victim advocacy organization argues that deterring criminal activity through capital punishment and third party victims' rights litigation is preferable to waiting for the concept of deterrence to be proved empirically.
Abstract
The deterrence rationale depends on a conception of human motivation based on a function of cost over gain. The value of punishment as deterrence rests on how it affects the future conduct of the general public rather than its impact on individual offenders. Furthermore, the threat must be total so that an offender faces almost certain probability of imprisonment as well as being arrested. Opponents of deterrence frequently base their arguments on the theory that social and economic conditions cause crime as well as evidence that deterrence is ineffective. From a common sense point of view, a return to traditional notions about human behavior appears to be the only alternative since no other approach has produced the desired results. In addition, crime has reached such alarming proportions that society cannot afford the time to conduct leisurely empirical evaluations of deterrence. A discussion of the arguments for and against the death penalty illustrates these tensions between the need for immediate action and the quest for certainty about the efficacy of deterrence. It contends that the plight of the victim should be society's overwhelming consideration and that executing murderers can probably save some innocent victims by deterring some would-be murderers. Another aspect of deterrence is litigation on behalf of a crime victim against grossly negligent correctional officials. By giving officials an incentive to be wary in their decisionmaking and deterring them from taking unnecessary risks, this approach may prevent many victimizations. Examples of judicial decisions in this area are Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles (1977) and Taylor v. State (1973). The article contains 65 footnotes. For related material, see NCJ 86552.