Skip to main content
Log in

Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

A survey of empirical research concerning the determinants of an individual’s perceptions of the risk of formal sanctions as a consequence of criminal behavior. The specific questions considered are: (1) How accurate is people’s knowledge about criminal sanctions? (2) How do people acquire and modify their subjective probabilities of punishment risk? (3) How do individuals act on their risk perceptions in specific criminal contexts?

Methods

Three broad classes of extant studies are reviewed. The first is the relationship between objective sanctions, sanction enforcement, and risk perceptions—research that includes calibration studies and correlational studies. The second is the relationship between punishment experiences (personal and vicarious) and change in risk perceptions, in particular, research that relies on formal models of Bayesian learning. The third is the responsiveness of would-be offenders to immediate environmental cues—a varied empirical tradition that encompasses vignette research, offender interviews, process tracing, and laboratory studies.

Results

First, research concerning the accuracy of risk perceptions suggests that the average citizen does a reasonable job of knowing what criminal penalties are statutorily allowed, but does a quite poor job of 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. Second, research on perceptual updating indicates that personal experiences and, to a lesser degree, vicarious experiences with crime and punishment are salient determinants of changes in risk perceptions. Specifically, individuals who commit crime and successfully avoid arrest tend to lower their subjective probability of apprehension. Third, research on the situational context of crime decision making reveals that risk perceptions are highly malleable to proximal influences which include, but are not limited to, objective sanction risk. Situational risk perceptions appear to be particularly strongly influenced by substance use, peer presence, and arousal level.

Conclusions

The perceptual deterrence tradition is theoretically rich, and has been renewed in the last decade by creative empirical tests from a variety of social scientific disciplines. Many knowledge gaps and limitations remain, and ensuing research should assign high priority to such considerations as sampling strategies and the measurement of risk perceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Paternoster (2010) provides an interesting survey of the intellectual roots of modern deterrence theory. Excellent theoretical and empirical reviews of early deterrence research are available in Zimring and Hawkins (1973), Andenaes (1974), Gibbs (1975), Nagin (1978), and Cook (1980). Updated reviews are provided in Nagin (1998), Apel and Nagin (2011), and Piquero et al. (2011).

  2. The committee’s conclusion concerning recent legislative changes was blunt: “While the Legislature had supposedly responded to public appeal and increased the penalties for crime of violence to victims, this was not known by the public” (Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure 1968: 14).

  3. These researchers have suggested that sanction perceptions are grounded less in punishment reality and knowledge of criminal codes, than in social condemnation of criminal acts and respondent beliefs about what ought to be done about crime (Erickson and Gobbs 1978; Williams and Gibbs 1981; Williams et al. 1980).

  4. Sherman (1990) suggested that crackdowns result in initial deterrence because of a short-term increase in the objective risk of apprehension, which decays when police back off. However, certain crackdowns have the capacity to produce residual deterrence following initial deterrence decay, because of greater uncertainty in apprehension risk that persists past the crackdown. He advocated policy approaches which capitalize on would-be offenders’ “ambiguity aversion” (see Tversky and Kahneman 1974).

  5. An interesting anomaly is the finding by Apospori et al. (1992) that, in their sample of arrestees, sanctioned offending was correlated with lower risk perceptions. They surmised that more prolific offenders learn that the risk of apprehension is actually quite low, and that the experience of being punished is not as aversive as they might have believed. Other scholars have reported that some offenders, especially those with prior prison experience, actually exhibit a preference for prison sentences over probation (Crouch 1993; McClelland and Alpert 1985).

  6. Hjalmarsson (2009) also estimated models of change in criminal behavior at the age of criminal majority in the NLSY97, but her data only allowed her to estimate reduced-form models, because her measure of risk perceptions was limited to auto theft. She found some evidence that criminal behavior declined at the age of criminal majority, although her results differed by offense type and were highly sensitive to how she adjusted for age. For other mixed evidence on changes in behavior at the age of criminal majority, see Levitt (1998) and Lee and McCrary (2005).

  7. In criminology, research on criminal event decision making is closely tied to the tradition of research on situational crime prevention (Clarke 1983).

  8. Additionally, in the presence of a group of same-aged peers, participants were significantly more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior in a computerized game, and to choose a riskier course of action in hypothetical decision-making dilemmas (e.g., allowing friends to bring drugs into one’s house, stealing a car, cheating on an exam). These peer effects were particularly strong among adolescents and young adults.

References

  • Albert D, Steinberg L (2011) Judgment and decision making in adolescence. J Res Adol 21:211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andenaes J (1974) Punishment and deterrence. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DA (2002) The deterrence hypothesis and picking pockets at the pickpocket’s hanging. Am Law Econ Rev 4:295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anwar S, Loughran TA (2011) Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:667–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel R, Nagin DS (2011) General deterrence: a review of recent evidence. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds) Crime and public policy, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 411–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel R, Pogarsky G, Bates L (2009) The sanctions-perceptions link in a model of school-based deterrence. J Quant Criminol 25:201–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apospori E, Alpert G (1993) The role of differential experience with the criminal justice system in changes in perceptions of severity of legal sanctions over time. J Res Crime Delinq 39:184–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apospori E, Alpert G, Paternoster R (1992) The effect of involvement with the criminal justice system: a neglected dimension of the relationship between experience and sanctions. Justice Q 9:379–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D, Lowenstein G (2006) The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. J Behav Decis Making 19:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure (1968) Deterrent effects of criminal sanctions. Assembly of the State of California, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman R, Paternoster R, Ward S (1992) The rationality of sexual offending: testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law Soc Rev 26:343–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria C (1764/1963) On crimes and punishments. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York (translated by Henry Paolucci)

  • Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett T, Wright R (1984a) Burglars on burglary. Gower, Brookfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett T, Wright R (1984b) Constraints to burglary: the offender’s perspective. In: Clarke R, Hope T (eds) Coping with Burglary: research perspectives on policy. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, pp 181–200

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham J (1789/1988) The principles of morals and legislation. Prometheus Books, Amherst.

  • Beyth-Marom R, Austin L, Fischoff B, Palmgren C, Jacobs-Quadrel M (1993) Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: adults and adolescents. Dev Psychol 29:549–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1984) Patterns in crime. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges GS, Stone JA (1986) Effects of criminal punishment on perceived threat of punishment: toward an understanding of specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 23:207–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael SE, Piquero AR (2006) Deterrence and arrest ratios. Int J Offend Therapy Compar Criminol 50:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll JS (1978) A psychological approach to deterrence: the evaluation of crime opportunities. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:1512–1520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll J, Weaver F (1986) Shoplifters’ perceptions of crime opportunities: a process-tracing study. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 19–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cherbonneau M, Copes H (2006) “Drive it like you stole it”: auto theft and the illusion of normalcy. Br J Criminol 46:193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RV (1983) Situational crime prevention: its theoretical basis and practical scope. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 4. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 225–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RV, Cornish DB (1985) Modeling offenders’ decisions: a framework for research and policy. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 6. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 147–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Claster DS (1967) Comparison of risk perception between delinquents and non-delinquents. J Crim Law Criminol 58:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook PJ (1977) Punishment and crime: a critique of current findings concerning the preventive effects of punishment. Law Contemp Prob 41:164–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook PJ (1980) Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. In: Morris N, Tonry M (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 211–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell PF, Olson JN, Avar DW (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch BM (1993) Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Q 10:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominitz J, Manski CF (1997) Perceptions of economic insecurity: evidence from the survey of economic expectations. Public Opin Q 61:261–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doob AN, Webster CM (2003) Sentence severity and crime: accepting the null hypothesis. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 143–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson ML, Gobbs JP (1978) Objective and perceptual properties of legal punishment and the deterrence doctrine. Soc Probl 25:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney F (1986) Robbers as decision-makers. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 53–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Bruine de Bruin W (1999) Fifty-fifty = 50%? J Behav Decis Making 12:149–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RB (1999) The economics of crime. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3C. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3529–3571

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner M, Steinberg L (2005) Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev Psychol 41:625–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geerken MR, Gove WR (1975) Deterrence: some theoretical considerations. Law Soc Rev 9:497–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs JP (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick HG, Bryjak GJ (1980) The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Soc Forces 59:471–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg DF (1981) Methodological issues in survey research on the inhibition of crime. J Crim Law Criminol 72:1094–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grube JW, Kearney KA (1983) A “mandatory” jail sentence for drinking and driving. Eval Rev 7:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase CM, Silbereisen RK (2011) Effects of positive affect on risk perceptions in adolescence and young adulthood. J Adol 34:29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjalmarsson R (2009) Crime and expected punishment: changes in perceptions at the age of criminal majority. Am Law Econ Rev 11:209–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt TJ, Blevins CR, Kuhns JB (in press) Examining diffusion and arrest avoidance practices among johns. Crime Delinq

  • Horney J, Marshall IH (1992) Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe ES, Brandau CJ (1988) Additive effects of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishments on judgments of crime deterrence scale value. J Appl Soc Psychol 18:796–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs BA (1999) Dealing crack: the social world of streetcorner selling. Northeastern University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs BA (2010) Serendipity in robbery target selection. Br J Criminol 50:514–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs BA, Wright R (1999) Stick-up, street culture, and offender motivation. Criminology 37:149–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen GF (1969) Crime doesn’t pay: correlates of a shared misunderstanding. Soc Probl 17:189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson E, Payne J (1986) The decision to commit a crime: an information-processing analysis. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 170–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG (1981) Cannabis decriminalization: the impact on youth 1975–1980. Monitoring the future occasional paper no. 13. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor

  • Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93:1449–1475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleck G, Barnes JC (in press, a) Deterrence and macro-level perceptions of punishment risks: is there a “collective wisdom”? Crime Delinq

  • Kleck G, Barnes JC (in press b) Do more police lead to more crime deterrence? Crime Delinq

  • Kleck G, Sever B, Li S, Gertz M (2005) The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology 43:623–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper S, Nagin D (1989) Tax compliance and perceptions of the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Law Soc Rev 23:209–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore P, Witte A (1986) Models of decision making under uncertainty: the criminal choice. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 129–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DS, McCrary J (2005) Crime, punishment, and myopia. NBER working paper no. 11491. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge

  • Levitt SD (1998) Juvenile crime and punishment. J Polit Econ 106:1156–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner L (2007) Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am Econ Rev 97:444–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2011) On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: implications for criminal decision-making and deterrence. Criminology 49:1029–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran TA, Piquero AR, Fagan J, Mulvey EP (in press) Differential deterrence: studying heterogeneity and changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful offenders. Crime Delinq

  • Lowenstein G (1996) Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:272–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein G, Nagin D, Paternoster R (1997) The effect of sexual arousal on expectations of sexual forcefulness. J Res Crime Delinq 34:443–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein G, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun R, Pacula RL, Chriqui J, Harris K, Reuter P (2009) Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Rev Law Econ 5:347–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski CF (2004) Measuring expectations. Econometrica 72:1329–1376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski CF, Molinari F (2010) Rounding probabilistic expectations in surveys. J Bus Econ Stat 28:219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D (2006) Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am Sociol Rev 71:95–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland KA, Alpert GP (1985) Factor analysis applied to magnitude estimates of punishment seriousness: patterns of individual differences. J Quant Criminol 1:307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minor WW, Harry J (1982) Deterrent and experiential effects in perceptual deterrence research: a replication and extension. J Res Crime Delinq 19:190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers DG, Lamm H (1976) The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol Bull 83:602–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin D (1978) General deterrence: a review of the empirical evidence. In: Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (eds) Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS (2007) Moving choice to center stage in criminological research and theory: the American society of criminology 2006 Sutherland address. Criminology 45:259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc Rev 27:467–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:865–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2003) An experimental investigation of deterrence: cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology 41:167–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2004) Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J Quant Criminol 20:295–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Cullen FT, Jonson CL (2009) Imprisonment and reoffending. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 38. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 115–200

  • Parker J, Grasmick HG (1979) Linking actual and perceived certainty of punishment: an exploratory study of an untested proposition in deterrence theory. Criminology 17:366–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (1988) Examining three-wave deterrence models: a question of temporal order and specification. J Crim Law Criminol 79:135–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (1989) Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law Soc Rev 23:7–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (2010) How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? J Crim Law Criminol 100:765–823

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Iovanni L (1986) The deterrent effect of perceived severity: a reexamination. Soc Forces 64:751–777

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Piquero A (1995) Reconceptualizing deterrence: an empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. J Res Crime Delinq 32:251–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Pogarsky G (2009) Rational choice, agency and thoughtfully reflective decision making: the short and long-term consequences of making good choices. J Quant Criminol 25:103–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Simpson S (1996) Sanction threats and appeals to morality: testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law Soc Rev 30:549–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Chiricos TG, Waldo GP (1982) Perceived risk and deterrence: methodological artifacts in perceptual deterrence research. J Crim Law Criminol 73:1238–1258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1983a) Estimating perceptual stability and deterrent effects: the role of perceived legal punishment in the inhibition of criminal involvement. J Crim Law Criminol 74:270–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1983b) Perceived risk and social control: do sanctions really deter? Law Soc Rev 17:457–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1985) Assessment of risk and behavioral experience: an exploratory study of change. Criminology 23:417–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Braunstein ML, Carroll JS (1978) Exploring predecisional behavior: an alternative approach to decision research. Organ Behav Human Perform 22:17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin I, Thornton C, Gartner R, Matsueda RL (1986) Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero A, Paternoster R (1998) An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. J Res Crime Delinq 35:3–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2002) Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 39:153–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero A, Rengert G (1999) Studying deterrence with active residential burglars. Justice Q 16:451–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero AR, Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Loughran T (2011) Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Ann Rev Law Social Sci 7:335–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky G (2002) Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky G (2009) Deterrence and decision making: research questions and theoretical refinements. In: Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Hall GP (eds) Handbook on crime and deviance. Springer, New York, pp 241–258

  • Pogarsky G, Piquero AR (2003) Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect. J Res Crime Delinq 40:95–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky G, Piquero AR, Paternoster R (2004) Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: the neglected linkage in deterrence theory. J Quant Criminol 20:343–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky G, Kim K, Paternoster R (2005) Perceptual change in the national youth survey: lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Q 22:1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2005) Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: a meta-analysis. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 32. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 373–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Blevins KR, Daigle LE, Madensen TD (2008) The empirical status of deterrence theory: a meta-analysis. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins KR (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 367–395

  • Reiss AJ Jr (1988) Co-offending and criminal careers. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 10. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 117–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyna VF, Farley F (2006) Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci Public Int 7:1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross HL (1973) Law, science, and accidents: the British Road Safety Act of 1967. J Legal Stud 2:1–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross HL (1982) Deterring the drinking driver: legal policy and social control. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross HL (1992) Confronting drunk driving: social policies for saving lives. Yale University Press, New Haven CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross HL, Voas RB (1990) The new Philadelphia story: the effects of severe punishment for drunk driving. Law Policy 12:51–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman LE, Paternoster R, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1982) Deterrent and experiential effects: the problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. J Res Crime Delinq 19:172–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheider MC (2001) Deterrence and the base rate fallacy: an examination of perceived certainty. Justice Q 18:63–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman LW (1990) Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 12. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Shover N (1985) Aging criminals. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Shover N (1996) Great pretenders: pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Shover N, Honaker D (1992) The socially bounded decision making of persistent property offenders. Howard J Crim Justice 31:276–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shover N, Thompson CY (1992) Age, differential expectations, and crime desistance. Criminology 30:89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart J Econ 69:99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1978) Rationality as process and product of thought. Am Econ Rev 8:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear LP (2000) The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 24:417–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford MC, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30:123–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg L (2008) A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Rev 28:78–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg L, Scott ES (2003) Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. Am Psychol 58:1009–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topalli V (2005) Criminal expertise and offender decision-making: an experimental analysis of how offenders and non-offenders differentially perceive social stimuli. Br J Criminol 45:269–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunnell KD (1992) Choosing crime: the criminal calculus of property offenders. Nelson-Hall, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinokur A (1971) Review and theoretical analysis of the effects of group processes upon individual and group decisions involving risk. Psychol Bull 76:231–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1972) Perceived penal sanction and self-reported criminality: a neglected approach to deterrence research. Soc Probl 19:522–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver FM, Carroll JS (1985) Crime perceptions in a natural setting by expert and novice shoplifters. Social Psychol Q 48:340–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Weerman FM, Smeenk WH (2005) Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: a comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology 43:499–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams KR, Gibbs JP (1981) Deterrence and knowledge of statutory penalties. Sociol Q 22:591–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams KR, Gibbs JP, Erickson ML (1980) Public knowledge of statutory penalties: the extent and basis of accurate perception. Pacific Sociol Rev 23:105–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Mon March 249:29–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright RT, Decker SH (1994) Burglars on the Job: streetlife and residential break-ins. Northeastern University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright RT, Decker SH (1997) Armed robbers in action: stickups and street culture. Northeastern University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright R, Logie RH, Decker SH (1995) Criminal expertise and offender decision making: an experimental study of the target selection process in residential burglary. J Res Crime Delinq 32:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright R, Brookman F, Bennett T (2006) The foreground dynamics of street robbery in Britain. Br J Criminol 46:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimring F, Hawkins G (1968) Deterrence and marginal groups. J Res Crime Delinq 2:100–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimring FE, Hawkins GJ (1973) Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Portions of this article were presented at the Deterrence and the Death Penalty workshop, in April 2011 at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. The author is thankful for constructive comments provided by meeting participants, and would like to specifically thank Daniel Nagin and Philip Cook.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Apel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Apel, R. Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence. J Quant Criminol 29, 67–101 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9170-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9170-1

Keywords

Navigation