Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- 14 Deterrence Theory: Key Findings and Challenges
- 15 General Deterrence: Review with Commentary on Decision-Making
- 16 Incarceration and Crime
- 17 Corporate Crime Deterrence
- 18 Deterrence Perceptions
- 19 Reputational Effects of Noncompliance with Financial Market Regulations
- 20 Deterrability and Moral Judgment
- 21 US Debarment: An Introduction
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
18 - Deterrence Perceptions
from Part II - Deterrence and Incapacitation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- 14 Deterrence Theory: Key Findings and Challenges
- 15 General Deterrence: Review with Commentary on Decision-Making
- 16 Incarceration and Crime
- 17 Corporate Crime Deterrence
- 18 Deterrence Perceptions
- 19 Reputational Effects of Noncompliance with Financial Market Regulations
- 20 Deterrability and Moral Judgment
- 21 US Debarment: An Introduction
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
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 - 244Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
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
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
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