Is Deterrence Effective? Results of a Meta-Analysis of Punishment

  • Dieter Dölling
  • Horst Entorf
  • Dieter Hermann
  • Thomas Rupp
Article

Abstract

It is supposed that threats of punishment deter potential criminals from committing crimes. The correctness of this theory is, however, questionable. Numerous empirical investigations have come to different results. In this article a meta-analysis is described which tries to find out the reasons for the different findings. First evaluations indicate that the methods of research have an influence on the results and that a possible deterring effect of the penal law can only be covered reasonably with a very differentiating model. Not all criminal acts can be influenced by deterrence. It appears that the most significant deterrent effects can be achieved in cases of minor crime, administrative offences and infringements of informal social norms. In cases of homicide, on the other hand, the meta-analysis does not indicate that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. According to the results, the validity of the deterrence hypothesis must be looked at in a differenciated manner.

Keywords

Deterrence General prevention Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Antony, J., & Entorf, H. (2003). Zur Gültigkeit der Abschreckung im Sinne der ökonomischen Theorie der Kriminalität: Grundzüge einer Meta-Studie. In H.-J. Albrecht, & H. Entorf (Eds.), Kriminalität, Ökonomie und Europäischer Sozialstaat (pp. 167–185). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Atteslander, P. (2003). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 12th edn. Berlin: Schmidt-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Beccaria, C. (1766). Über Verbrechen und Strafen. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von W. Alff, 1988. Frankfurt/Main: Insel-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: an Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentham, J. (1823). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Überarbeitete Auflage, 1907. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buikhuisen, W. (1974). General Deterrence: Research and Theory. Abstracts on Criminology and Penology, 14(3), 285–298.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, S. (1988). The Economics of Crime Deterrence: A Survey of Theory and Evidence. Kyklos, 41(2), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. (1991). Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie, Vol. 1: Handlungen und Handlungssysteme. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Diekmann, A. (2008). Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. 19th edition Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrlich, I. (1973). Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 521–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisele, H. (1999). Die general- und spezialpräventive Wirkung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen. Methoden, Ergebnisse, Metaanalyse (Ph.D. thesis). Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  12. Esser, H. (1999). Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen, Vol. 1: Situationslogik und Handeln. 3rd edn. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  13. Farin, E. (1994). Forschungsperspektive und Methodik der Metaanalyse. Forschungsberichte des Psychologischen Instituts der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, No. 113. Freiburg i. Br.: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar
  14. Feuerbach, P. J. A. (1799). Revision der Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe des positiven peinlichen Rechts 1. Erfurt: Henningsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  15. Fricke, R., & Treinis, G. (1985). Einführung in die Metaanalyse. Methoden der Psychologie, Vol. 3. Bern u.a.: Huber.Google Scholar
  16. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kreuzer, A. (2004). Prävention durch Repression. In J.-M. Jehle (Ed.), Angewandte Kriminologie zwischen Freiheit und Sicherheit (pp. 205–218). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Kromrey, H. (2006). Empirische Sozialforschung. 11th edn. Opladen: UTB Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  19. Nagin, D. (1978). General Deterrence: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, & D. Nagin (Eds.), Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates (pp. 95–139). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. Revised Edition. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Rupp, T. (2008). Meta Analysis of Crime and Deterrence: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature (Ph.D. thesis). Darmstadt: Technical University. http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/1054/2/rupp_diss.pdf(11/2008)
  22. Stanley, T. D. (2001). From Wheat to Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-Analysis. Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter Dölling
    • 1
  • Horst Entorf
    • 2
  • Dieter Hermann
    • 3
  • Thomas Rupp
    • 4
  1. 1.University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.University of Frankfurt on the MainFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Technical University of DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations