NCJ Number
143219
Journal
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Dated: (May 1993) Pages: 123-135
Date Published
1993
Length
13 pages
Annotation
After examining the logic of distinguishing between "general" and "specific" deterrence, the authors argue that a reconceptualization of these perspectives is needed.
Abstract
A key element of the conception of deterrence that has guided research is the distinction between "general" and "specific" deterrence. "General" deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on the general public (potential offenders), and "specific" deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on those individuals who actually undergo the punishment. The authors argue that this widely accepted conception of general and specific deterrence has serious shortcomings. It rests on faulty logic and has done little to clarify the deterrence process. The reconceptualization proposed by the authors suggests that it is unnecessary to formulate separate theories of general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that focuses on indirect experience with legal punishment and punishment avoidance and direct experience with legal punishment and punishment avoidance. Such a reconceptualization makes tests of the deterrence doctrine more complex. Tests based on survey data, for example, would need to include measures of persons' perceptions of their own certainty and severity of legal punishment for crimes; persons' perceptions of the certainty and severity of legal punishment for others; self-reported criminal behavior, including self-reports of direct experience with punishment and punishment avoidance; and estimates of peers' criminal behavior, including their experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. 40 references