Sometimes Ignorance is Bliss: Investigating Citizen Perceptions of the Certainty and Severity of Punishment
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Deterrence lies at the heart of the criminal justice system and policy. There is a lack of information on citizen’s perceptions regarding a critical element of the deterrence process as it manifests through the communication of sanction threats. This study uses data from over 400 adults to examine their knowledge regarding the probability of detection and the average punishments for DUI, and also assesses the contribution of demographic and theoretical variables in predicting perceptions of detection probabilities and punishment estimates. Results show that persons over-estimate the likelihood of detection and provide higher estimates for average sentence lengths, but very few variables predict deterrence perceptions. An investigation of the resetting effect shows that persons tend to lower the estimated likelihood of punishment after experiencing a punishment. Deterrence may work better if researchers and policy officials understand what influences these perceptions and how they may be modified.
- American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2008). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Ann Arbor: AAPOR.
- Andeneas, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
- Anwar, S., & Loughran, T. A. (2011). Testing a Bayesian updating model of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 49, 667–698. CrossRef
- Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law & Society Review, 26, 343–372. CrossRef
- Beccaria, C. [(1764) 1985]. On crimes and punishments. New York: Macmillan.
- Beitel, G. A., Sharp, M. C., & Glauz, W. D. (2000). Probability of arrest while driving under the influence of alcohol. Injury Prevention, 6, 158–161. CrossRef
- Bentham, J. [(1789) 1970]. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Darien, CT: Hafner Publishing.
- Carmichael, S., Langton, L., Leuking, G., Reitzel, J., & Piquero, A. (2005). Do the experiential and deterrent effect operate differently across gender? Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 267–276. CrossRef
- Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Public opinion about punishment and corrections, Crime and justice: A review of research, volume 27 (pp. 1–79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Decker, S. H., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: A research note. Criminology, 31, 135–179. CrossRef
- Erickson, M. L., & Gibbs, J. P. (1978). Objective and perceptual properties of legal punishment and the deterrence doctrine. Social Problems, 25, 253–264. CrossRef
- Fischhoff, B., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (1999). Fifty-fifty = 50%? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 149–163. CrossRef
- Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Risk perceptions among serious offenders: The role of crime and punishment. Criminology, 30, 575–594. CrossRef
- Kennedy, D. M. (2009). Deterrence and crime prevention: Revisiting the prospect of sanction. London: Routledge.
- Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley.
- Kleck, G., Sever, B., Li, S., & Gertz, M. (2005). The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology, 43, 623–660. CrossRef
- Lochner, L. (2007). Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. The American Economic Review, 97, 444–460. CrossRef
- Loughran, T. A., Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., & Mulvey, E. P. (in press). Differential deterrence: Studying heterogeneity and changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful offenders. Crime & Delinquency, forthcoming.
- Matsueda, R. L., Kreager, D. A., & Huizinga, D. (2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71, 95–122. CrossRef
- Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2010). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Florence: Cengage.
- Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, volume 23 (pp. 1–42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467–496. CrossRef
- Piquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, forthcoming.
- Piquero, A. R., & Rengert, G. F. (1999). Studying deterrence with active residential burglars. Justice Quarterly, 16, 451–471. CrossRef
- Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. G. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481–510. CrossRef
- Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying deterrable offenders: Implications for deterrence research. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452. CrossRef
- Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Why may punishment encourage offending and lower perceived sanction threats? Investigating the resetting and selection explanations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 95–120. CrossRef
- Pogarsky, G., Piquero, A. R., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: The neglected linkage in deterrence theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 343–369. CrossRef
- Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory—Advances in criminological theory (pp, Vol. 15, pp. 367–395). New Brunswick: Transactions Publishers.
- Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2005). Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
- Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G., & Chiricos, T. (1983). Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review, 17, 457–479. CrossRef
- Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence. New York: Free Press.
- Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123–135. CrossRef
- Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey research and societal change. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 775–802. CrossRef
- Tuckell, P., & O’Neill, H. (2002). The vanishing respondent in telephone surveys. Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 26–48.
- Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- United States Sentencing Commission. (2007). U.S. sentencing commission—Fiscal year 2007 (Table 13 and Appendix A). http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2007/Table13.pdf (accessed April 12, 2010).
- Waldo, G., & Chiricos, T. (1972). Perceived penal sanction and self-reported criminality. Social Problems, 19, 522–540. CrossRef
- Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat of crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Sometimes Ignorance is Bliss: Investigating Citizen Perceptions of the Certainty and Severity of Punishment
American Journal of Criminal Justice
Volume 37, Issue 4 , pp 630-646
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Program in Criminology, EPPS, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Road, Richardson, TX, 75080-3021, USA
- 2. College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 634 W. Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32606, USA
- 3. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 2220 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD, 20742, USA