Page 141 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 141 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
135
Deterrence is a second type of punishment. It has been defined as: “the inhibiting effect of sanctions on the criminal activity of people other than the sanctioned offender.”381 It is also said “people are deterred from actions when they refrain from them because they dislike what they believe to be the possible consequences of those actions.”382 However one prefers to define it, the object is the same, punishment as a means to prevent criminal actions.
Deterrence works in two principal fashions. First is the effect of imposing criminal sanctions on the subsequent behavior of the individual actually punished – known as “special deterrence” – which is studied using recidivism rates.383 Second is the symbolic effect punishment may have on potential criminals; the imposition of sanctions on one person may demonstrate to rest of public the expected costs of criminal acts and discourage that behavior.384 “The theory of simply deterrence is that threats can reduce crime by causing a change of heart, induced by the unpleasantness of the specific consequences threatened.”385
The hypothesis underlying general deterrence derives from the general proposition that human behavior can be influenced by incentives. This leads to the specific prediction that increases in severity of penalties or the certainty of their imposition on offenders who are detected will reduce crime by those who are not directly sanctioned.386
381 Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen and Daniel Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978.
382 Nigel Walker, Why Punish? Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.
383 Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen and Daniel Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978.
384 Ibid.
385 Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon J. Hawkins, Deterrence, the Legal Threat in Crime Control, University of Chicago Press, 1973.
386 Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen and Daniel Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978.
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 141 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 135 Deterrence is a second type of punishment. It has been defined as: “the inhibiting effect of sanctions on the criminal activity of people other than the sanctioned offender.”381 It is also said “people are deterred from actions when they refrain from them because they dislike what they believe to be the possible consequences of those actions.”382 However one prefers to define it, the object is the same, punishment as a means to prevent criminal actions. Deterrence works in two principal fashions. First is the effect of imposing criminal sanctions on the subsequent behavior of the individual actually punished – known as “special deterrence” – which is studied using recidivism rates.383 Second is the symbolic effect punishment may have on potential criminals; the imposition of sanctions on one person may demonstrate to rest of public the expected costs of criminal acts and discourage that behavior.384 “The theory of simply deterrence is that threats can reduce crime by causing a change of heart, induced by the unpleasantness of the specific consequences threatened.”385 The hypothesis underlying general deterrence derives from the general proposition that human behavior can be influenced by incentives. This leads to the specific prediction that increases in severity of penalties or the certainty of their imposition on offenders who are detected will reduce crime by those who are not directly sanctioned.386 381 Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen and Daniel Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978. 382 Nigel Walker, Why Punish? Oxford University Press, New York, 1991. 383 Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen and Daniel Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978. 384 Ibid. 385 Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon J. Hawkins, Deterrence, the Legal Threat in Crime Control, University of Chicago Press, 1973. 386 Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen and Daniel Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1978. |
