• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

  • Criminology
  • Theories of crime
    • Anomie/ strain theories
    • Biological theories of crime
    • Career/ Development/ Life-Course
    • Conflict-oriented theories of crime
    • Control
    • Culture/ Emotions/ Situations
    • Learning/ Subculture
    • Rational Choice
    • Sanctioning
    • Social Disorganization
  • Sociology
  • Links
Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Theories of crime / Rational Choice / Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories

4. June 2019 | zuletzt aktualisiert am 4. June 2019 von Christian Wickert

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Toggle
  • Main Proponents
  • Theory
  • Implications for Criminal Policy
  • Critical Appraisal & Relevance
  • Literature
    • Primary Literature
    • Further Information

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Paternoster, R.; Piquero, A. (1995): Reconceptualizing Deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32, S. 251-258.
  • Piquero, A.; Tibbetts, S. (1996): Specifying the direct and indirect effect of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision. Justice Quarterly 13, S.481-510
  • Stafford, M. C.; Warr, M. (1993): A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30, S.123-135.

 

Further Information

  • Piquero, A.; Pogarsky, G. (2002): Beyond Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of Deterrence: Personal and Vicarious Experiences, Impulsivity, and Offending Behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 39, No. 2, 153-186.


Teile diesen Beitrag
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • E-Mail 

Verwandte Beiträge:

  • Kriminalitaetstheorien
    Theories of crime
  • Titelbild für Ausführungen zu Jack Katz' Seductions of Crime
    Seductions of Crime (Katz)
  • Classical Criminology
    Classical Criminology

Kategorie: Theories of Crime Tags: control, Deterrence, Deterrence, Germany, Italy, micro/macro, punitive, Rational Choice, sanctioning, situation, USA

Primary Sidebar

Lektionen

  • Classical Criminology
    Cesare Beccaria & Jeremy Bentham
  • Rational Choice Theory
    Derek Cornish & Ronald Clarke
  • Deterrence Theories
    Various Authors
  • Routine Activity Theory (RAT)
    Cohen & Felson

Übungsaufgaben

Klassische Schule der Kriminologie

  1. Was waren die zentralen kriminalpolitischen Forderungen von Cesare Beccaria?
  2. Was ist Benthams Panopticon im Unterschied zu herkömmlichen Gefängnissen?
  3. Aus was resultiert nach Beccaria und Co. Kriminalität?
  4. Wieso bezeichnet man die Klassische Kriminologie als „tatorientiert“ und was ist der entscheidende Unterschied zu ätiologischen Theorien der Kriminologie?
  5. Wie stark oder wie schwach ist die Orientierung des aktuell geltenden Strafrechts an der klassischen Schule im Vergleich zur Orientierung an der positivistisch-ätiologischen Schule?

Rational Choice

  1. Was sind die Grundannahmen des ökonomischen Ansatzes der rationalen Wahlhandlung und was ist unter dem Begriff „rationaler Akteur“ zu verstehen?
  2. Was ist – übertragen auf kriminelle Handlungen – unter Nutzen und Kosten einer Handlung zu verstehen bzw. welche Beispiele sind hier vorstellbar?
  3. Wo liegt die Verbindung zwischen der Klassischen Kriminalitätstheorie und der Theorie der rationalen Wahlhandlung?
  4. Was ist gemeint, wenn von einer Erweiterung des rational-choice-Ansatzes um soziale und psychologische Faktoren die Rede ist?
  5. Wieso ist der Erklärungsgehalt dieser erweiterten Fassung der rational choice theory sehr gering oder gar gleich null?

Abschreckungstheorien

  1. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen genereller und spezifischer Abschreckung?
  2. Auf welchen Theorien und Theoretikern basieren die Abschreckungstheorien?
  3. Was sind mögliche Folgen von Videoüberwachungen gut besuchter Orte?
  4. Welche Untersuchungen sowohl für als auch gegen die Annahme abschreckender Wirkungen von Todesstrafen lassen sich finden?
  5. Was verbirgt sich hinter den zur Abschreckung alternativen Konzepten „just deserts“, „retribution“ und „incapacitation“?

Routine Activity Approach

  1. Was sind die drei Elemente des routine activity approach und welche Beispiele lassen sich jeweils für sie finden?
  2. Was unterscheidet die situational crime prevention von anderen kriminalpolitischen Programmen?
  3. Was sind natürliche Strategien der situationalen Kriminalprävention?
  4. Welche Prozesse verbergen sich unter dem Sammelbegriff „Deliktsverlagerung“?
  5. Was sind die gemeinsamen theoretischen Stärken und Schwächen aller (neo-) klassischen Ansätze und worin liegen demnach die Grenzen abschreckender und situationaler Kriminalprävention?

Footer

About SozTheo

SozTheo is a collection of information and resources aimed at all readers interested in sociology and criminology. SozTheo was created as a private page by Prof. Dr. Christian Wickert, lecturer in sociology and criminology at the University of Applied Sciences for Police and Public Administration in North Rhine-Westphalia (HSPV NRW). The contributions and linked articles available here do not necessarily reflect the official opinion, attitude or curricula of the HSPV NRW.

Impressum & Kontakt

  • About me

Partnerseiten

Criminologia – Kriminologie-Blog

Krimpedia

  • English
    • Deutsch (German)

Spread the word


Teile diesen Beitrag
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • E-Mail 

© 2025 · SozTheo · Admin