DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY
The first forays into Western criminological theory came in the language of deterrence (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]). The paradigm itself is simple and straightforward, offering an explanation for crime that doubles as a solution (Pratt et al., 2006). Crime occurs when the expected rewards outweigh the an...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Criminology (Beverly Hills) 2010-05, Vol.48 (2), p.417-441 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 441 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 417 |
container_title | Criminology (Beverly Hills) |
container_volume | 48 |
creator | JACOBS, BRUCE A. |
description | The first forays into Western criminological theory came in the language of deterrence (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]). The paradigm itself is simple and straightforward, offering an explanation for crime that doubles as a solution (Pratt et al., 2006). Crime occurs when the expected rewards outweigh the anticipated risks, so increasing the risks, at least theoretically, will prevent most crimes in most circumstances. If deterrence describes the perceptual process by which would‐be offenders calculate risks and rewards prior to offending, then deterrability refers to the offender's capacity and/or willingness to perform this calculation. The distinction between deterrence and deterrability is critical to understanding criminality from a utilitarian perspective. However, by attempting to answer “big picture” questions about the likelihood of offending relative to sanction threats, precious little scholarship has attended to the situated meaning of deterrability. This article draws attention to this lacuna in hopes of sensitizing criminology to an area of inquiry that, at present, remains only loosely developed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00191.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_759516558</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2048749301</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5241-8de945516fb53e299338aba0b107e63cd4e206e9e3d20610be81236dff9d2d13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1PwkAQhjdGExH9Bx6IF0-t-9nuHjwgFGgCmJAmxNOkH9uktVDsQoR_79YaDl50L7Mz-z6Td2cQGhDsEnueSpf4XDiKUOFSbKsYE0Xc4wXqnR8uUc9WiUOY5NfoxpjSplRwv4fux0EUrFbBchQMhsvxoEuHL-E8jN5u0VUeV0bf_cQ-iiZBNJo589dpOBrOnVRQThyZacWFIF6eCKapUozJOIlxQrCvPZZmXFPsaaVZZiPBiZaEMi_Lc5XRjLA-euza7pr646DNHjaFSXVVxVtdHwz4QtnmQsi_lZx71pEU_1Aya4V6vlU-_FKW9aHZ2v8CEz6mnqKtSHaitKmNaXQOu6bYxM0JCIZ2D1BCO25oxw3tHuB7D3C06HOHfhaVPv2bg9EqXNib5Z2OL8xeH8983LyDde8LWC-nMPMn65laL0CyLx1Llrs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>357026927</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY</title><source>HeinOnline</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Online service)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</creator><creatorcontrib>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</creatorcontrib><description>The first forays into Western criminological theory came in the language of deterrence (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]). The paradigm itself is simple and straightforward, offering an explanation for crime that doubles as a solution (Pratt et al., 2006). Crime occurs when the expected rewards outweigh the anticipated risks, so increasing the risks, at least theoretically, will prevent most crimes in most circumstances. If deterrence describes the perceptual process by which would‐be offenders calculate risks and rewards prior to offending, then deterrability refers to the offender's capacity and/or willingness to perform this calculation. The distinction between deterrence and deterrability is critical to understanding criminality from a utilitarian perspective. However, by attempting to answer “big picture” questions about the likelihood of offending relative to sanction threats, precious little scholarship has attended to the situated meaning of deterrability. This article draws attention to this lacuna in hopes of sensitizing criminology to an area of inquiry that, at present, remains only loosely developed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0011-1384</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-9125</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00191.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CRNYA8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Computation ; Crime ; Crime prevention ; Criminality ; Criminology ; deterrability ; Deterrence ; Explanation ; Lacuna ; offender decision making ; Offenders ; Paradigms ; Risk ; Theory ; Threat ; Utilitarianism</subject><ispartof>Criminology (Beverly Hills), 2010-05, Vol.48 (2), p.417-441</ispartof><rights>2010 American Society of Criminology</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Criminology May 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5241-8de945516fb53e299338aba0b107e63cd4e206e9e3d20610be81236dff9d2d13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5241-8de945516fb53e299338aba0b107e63cd4e206e9e3d20610be81236dff9d2d13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1745-9125.2010.00191.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1745-9125.2010.00191.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,33774,33775,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</creatorcontrib><title>DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY</title><title>Criminology (Beverly Hills)</title><description>The first forays into Western criminological theory came in the language of deterrence (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]). The paradigm itself is simple and straightforward, offering an explanation for crime that doubles as a solution (Pratt et al., 2006). Crime occurs when the expected rewards outweigh the anticipated risks, so increasing the risks, at least theoretically, will prevent most crimes in most circumstances. If deterrence describes the perceptual process by which would‐be offenders calculate risks and rewards prior to offending, then deterrability refers to the offender's capacity and/or willingness to perform this calculation. The distinction between deterrence and deterrability is critical to understanding criminality from a utilitarian perspective. However, by attempting to answer “big picture” questions about the likelihood of offending relative to sanction threats, precious little scholarship has attended to the situated meaning of deterrability. This article draws attention to this lacuna in hopes of sensitizing criminology to an area of inquiry that, at present, remains only loosely developed.</description><subject>Computation</subject><subject>Crime</subject><subject>Crime prevention</subject><subject>Criminality</subject><subject>Criminology</subject><subject>deterrability</subject><subject>Deterrence</subject><subject>Explanation</subject><subject>Lacuna</subject><subject>offender decision making</subject><subject>Offenders</subject><subject>Paradigms</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Threat</subject><subject>Utilitarianism</subject><issn>0011-1384</issn><issn>1745-9125</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1PwkAQhjdGExH9Bx6IF0-t-9nuHjwgFGgCmJAmxNOkH9uktVDsQoR_79YaDl50L7Mz-z6Td2cQGhDsEnueSpf4XDiKUOFSbKsYE0Xc4wXqnR8uUc9WiUOY5NfoxpjSplRwv4fux0EUrFbBchQMhsvxoEuHL-E8jN5u0VUeV0bf_cQ-iiZBNJo589dpOBrOnVRQThyZacWFIF6eCKapUozJOIlxQrCvPZZmXFPsaaVZZiPBiZaEMi_Lc5XRjLA-euza7pr646DNHjaFSXVVxVtdHwz4QtnmQsi_lZx71pEU_1Aya4V6vlU-_FKW9aHZ2v8CEz6mnqKtSHaitKmNaXQOu6bYxM0JCIZ2D1BCO25oxw3tHuB7D3C06HOHfhaVPv2bg9EqXNib5Z2OL8xeH8983LyDde8LWC-nMPMn65laL0CyLx1Llrs</recordid><startdate>201005</startdate><enddate>201005</enddate><creator>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Society of Criminology</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201005</creationdate><title>DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY</title><author>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5241-8de945516fb53e299338aba0b107e63cd4e206e9e3d20610be81236dff9d2d13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Computation</topic><topic>Crime</topic><topic>Crime prevention</topic><topic>Criminality</topic><topic>Criminology</topic><topic>deterrability</topic><topic>Deterrence</topic><topic>Explanation</topic><topic>Lacuna</topic><topic>offender decision making</topic><topic>Offenders</topic><topic>Paradigms</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Threat</topic><topic>Utilitarianism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Criminology (Beverly Hills)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>JACOBS, BRUCE A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY</atitle><jtitle>Criminology (Beverly Hills)</jtitle><date>2010-05</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>417</spage><epage>441</epage><pages>417-441</pages><issn>0011-1384</issn><eissn>1745-9125</eissn><coden>CRNYA8</coden><abstract>The first forays into Western criminological theory came in the language of deterrence (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]). The paradigm itself is simple and straightforward, offering an explanation for crime that doubles as a solution (Pratt et al., 2006). Crime occurs when the expected rewards outweigh the anticipated risks, so increasing the risks, at least theoretically, will prevent most crimes in most circumstances. If deterrence describes the perceptual process by which would‐be offenders calculate risks and rewards prior to offending, then deterrability refers to the offender's capacity and/or willingness to perform this calculation. The distinction between deterrence and deterrability is critical to understanding criminality from a utilitarian perspective. However, by attempting to answer “big picture” questions about the likelihood of offending relative to sanction threats, precious little scholarship has attended to the situated meaning of deterrability. This article draws attention to this lacuna in hopes of sensitizing criminology to an area of inquiry that, at present, remains only loosely developed.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00191.x</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0011-1384 |
ispartof | Criminology (Beverly Hills), 2010-05, Vol.48 (2), p.417-441 |
issn | 0011-1384 1745-9125 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_759516558 |
source | HeinOnline; Wiley Online Library (Online service); Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Computation Crime Crime prevention Criminality Criminology deterrability Deterrence Explanation Lacuna offender decision making Offenders Paradigms Risk Theory Threat Utilitarianism |
title | DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T09%3A53%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DETERRENCE%20AND%20DETERRABILITY&rft.jtitle=Criminology%20(Beverly%20Hills)&rft.au=JACOBS,%20BRUCE%20A.&rft.date=2010-05&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=417&rft.epage=441&rft.pages=417-441&rft.issn=0011-1384&rft.eissn=1745-9125&rft.coden=CRNYA8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00191.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2048749301%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=357026927&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |