Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T23:34:04.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Severity of Formal Sanctions as a Repressive Response to Deviant Behavior*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

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

Extract

In a critique of our paper, “Severity of Formal Sanctions as a Deterrent to Deviant Behavior” (Law and Society Review, 1970: 21-40), Professor Paul E. Meehl has questioned our interpretation of the data particularly in Table 3 of the original paper. On the basis of that evidence, we concluded that severity of formal sanctions show no direct deterrent effect on the deviant behavior under consideration, but do appear to have an indirect deterrent effect through their impact on the normative climate of the campus (p. 37). In challenging this interpretation of the data, Professor Meehl expressed concern that non social science readers of the Review might be misled by our use of “causal language” in the interpretation of these tabulations from cross sectional data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , February 1972 , pp. 427 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 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.)

Footnotes

*

EDITOR'S NOTE: This paper was originally written in response to criticism raised by Professor Paul E. Meehl in a communication to the Review. Professor Meehl questioned the interpretation of the findings presented by Salem and Bowers (1970) and voiced concern that non social science readers of the Review might be misled by the “causal language” used in their analysis of cross sectional data. In this paper Professors Bowers and Salem address themselves to the point raised by Meehl and extend the analysis of their earlier paper. Professor Meehl has since asked that his commentary be withdrawn.

References

BOWERS, W. J. (1971) “Deterrence, Retribution, or Repression: The Relationship between Crime and Punishment in the Case of Homicide,” Russell B. Stearns Study, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
BOWERS, W. J. (1968) “Normative Constraints on Deviant Behavior in the College Context,” 31 Sociometry 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOWERS, W. J. (1964) Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.Google Scholar
CHIRICOS, T. G., and WALDO, G. P. (1970) “Punishment and Crime. An Examination of Some Empirical Evidence,” 17 Social Problems 200.Google Scholar
DUNCAN, O. D. (1966) “Path Analysis: Sociological Examples,” 72 American Journal of Sociology 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAND, K. C. (1969) “Principles of Path Analysis,” Pp. 3–37 in Borgatta, Edgar F. (ed.) Sociological Methodology, 1969. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
MEEHL, P. E. (1971) “Law and the Fireside Inductions: Some Reflections of a Clinical Psychologist,” Journal of Social Issues (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SALEM, R. G., and BOWERS, W. J. (1970) “Severity of Formal Sanctions as a Deterrent to Deviant Behavior,” 5 Law and Society Review 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHUESSLER, K. F. (1952) “The Deterrent Influence of the Death Penalty,” 284 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SELLIN, T. (1967) Capital Punishment. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
TITTLE, C. R. (1969) “Crime Rates and Legal Sanctions.” 16 Social Problems 409.Google Scholar