Types of Deterrence
Generally, deterrence is understood to operate in two distinct ways. General deterrence works on the population at large; the punishment of one wrongdoer serves as an example to all of society about the cost of misbehavior. Specific deterrence is aimed at the individual; once the law has been violated, and the consequence realized, that individual should have a new and enhanced understanding of the personal cost of illegal behavior. In 1993, Stafford and Warr brought these two strands together, combining and redefining them:
Specific deterrence—directly experiencing punishment and punishment avoidance
General deterrence—experiencing punishment and punishment avoidance indirectly when others are punished (cited in Sitren & Applegate, 2007, p. 31).
In this way, they move beyond the notion that distinct populations experience one or the other form of deterrence; rather, everyone is encapsulated in both types of deterrence. Further, they suggest that there has
7/24/22, 1:29 PM @ Walden University Library
https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/delivery?sid=9bc33b39-e8a0-4a82-927c-3086fe9874f7%40redis&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2feds.p.ebscohos… 3/9
been insufficient focus on punishment avoidance behaviors, suggesting this mindset might do more “to encourage crime than punishment does to discourage criminal behavior” (Sitren & Applegate, 2007, p. 31); as individuals watch others commit crimes and escape punishment, the Durkheim notion of “certain, swift and severe” consequences diminishes.
Applications
When considering the purpose of punishment, it is critical to understand what factors lead into criminal behavior. A school of criminologists believes that some portion of the population has a “constant and unchanging criminal propensity.” Thus those who have committed crimes at one point in their lives are more likely than non-offenders to repeat the criminal behavior. They have a “population heterogeneity perspective,” recognizing that antisocial behavior will manifest early in life, and the pattern will continue to repeat (Bhati & Piquero, 2007, p. 213). If this view is accurate, punishment should be used only as retribution and incapacitation, but not as a deterrent, since the individual has a ‘propensity’ toward crime. Nagin and Patermoster suggest that there is also a factor of contagion; once the offense has occurred, the offender’s life circumstances take such a turn for the worse that future crime becomes more likely. Bhati and Piquero consider the evidence on criminal propensity to be quite persuasive, but see room for the contagion model as well. Nagin and Paternoster argue for additional research on influence incarceration plays on the relationship between past and future crime (Bhati & Piquere, 2007).