Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T20:34:55.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Severity of Formal Sanctions as a Deterrent to Deviant Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Richard G. Salem  and
William J. Bowers
Richard G. Salem
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
William J. Bowers
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The imposition of penalities for violation of criminal laws has been traditionally justified for such reasons as social justice and retribution. Today, perhaps the main justification for imposing severe penalties on those who violate the law is that such punishments serve as a specific deterrent to future violations by the offender and as a general deterrent to violations by others who might be tempted to follow his lead.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , August 1970 , pp. 21 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BALL, J. C. (1970) “Crime, punishment, and deterrence: a reexamination.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
BALL, J. C. (1955) “The deterrence concept in criminology and law.” J. of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Sci. 46 (September/October): 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOWERS, W. J. (1968) “Normative constraints on deviant behavior in the college context.” Sociometry 31 (Winter): 370–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BOWERS, W. J. (1964) Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.Google Scholar
BOWERS, W. J. (1970) “Student disciplinary administration.” pp. 7/36–7/63 in Knowles, A. S. (ed.) Handbook of College and University Administration. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
California State Legislature (1968) Deterrent Effects of Criminal Sanctions. Progress report of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure.Google Scholar
CHAMBLISS, W. J. (1969) Crime and the Legal Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
CHAMBLISS, W. J. (1966) “The deterrent influence of punishment.” Crime and Delinquency 12 (January): 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHIRICOS, T. G. and G. P., WALDO (1970) “Punishment and crime: empirical evidence?” Presented at the meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
COHEN, A. K. (1966) Deviance and Control. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
COSER, L. A. (1967) Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
COSER, L. A. (1962) “Some functions of normative flexibility.” Amer. J. of Sociology 68 (September): 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DURKHEIM, E. (1964) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
ERIKSON, K. T. (1966) The Wayward Puritans. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
GIBBS, J. P. (1968) “Crime, punishment, and deterrence.” Southwestern Social Sci. Q. 48 (March): 515–530.Google Scholar
HOMANS, G. C. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
PINCOFFS, E. L. (1966) The Rationale of Legal Punishment. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
ROSS, H. L. and D. T., CAMPBELL (1968) “The Connecticut speed crackdown,” Pp. 30–35 in Ross, H. Lawrence (ed.) Perspectives on the Social Order. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
SCHUESSLER, K. F. (1969) “The deterrent influence of the death penalty,” Pp. 378–388 in Chambliss, W. J. (ed.) Crime and the Legal Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, R. D. (1969) “Sanctions and compliance.” Presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, San Francisco.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, R. D. (1967) “On legal sanctions.” Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 34 (Winter): 274–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SELLIN, T. (1966) “Effect of repeal and reintroduction of the death penalty on homocide rates,” Pp. 339–351 in Bedau, H. A. (ed.) The Death Penalty in America. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
STINCHCOMBE, A. L. (1968) Constructing Social Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
STOUFFER, S. A. (1949) “An analysis of conflicting social norms.” Amer. Soc. Rev. 14 (December): 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STOUFFER, S. A. (1951) “Role conflict and personality,” Pp. 481–496 in Parsons, T. and Shils, E. A. (eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
TITTLE, C. R. (1969) “Crime rates and legal sanctions.” Social Problems 16 (Spring): 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TOBY, J. (1964) “Is punishment necessary?” J. of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Sci. 55, 3: 332–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TURNER, R. H. (1959) “An experiment in the modification of role conception.” Year Book of the Amer. Phil. Society: 329-333.Google Scholar
VOLD, G. B. (1958) Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar