The idea that punishment of crime is an effective deterrent goes back millennia. Fear of punishment causes people to reduce criminal activity — or commit no crime at all— the thinking goes.
But, after decades of unprecedented growth in imprisonment and, more broadly, a greater reliance on deterrence to justify punishments, what evidence exists to support the idea?
That fundamental question, and an investigation of the historical foundation and contemporary policies of deterrence, are at the center of a new book by Dan Mears, distinguished professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
“In a nutshell, the general wisdom is that when punishment is more certain, severe, and swift, it will have a greater effect deterring crime,” Mears said. “A focus on more and tougher punishment is central to criminal justice policy today.”
In “Comprehensive Deterrence Theory: The Science and Policy of Punishment,” Mears and his coauthor, Mark Stafford of Texas State University, examine those policies and the primary theory used to justify them.
“We do not argue for or against deterrence,” he said of the book. “What we identify is that theoretical foundation of deterrence-based policy is much more complex than has been understood, and that policy is unlikely to be effective when it fails to address this complexity.”
One example of the many complexities is consideration of rewards, Mears said.
“Deterrence is not just about punishment, or what can be viewed as a possible cost of crime. It also involves rewards. Punishment might deter, but it will deter less if there are few rewards of, say, conventional behavior — of not committing crime,” he said. “That is directly relevant for policy. For someone who can’t get a job because of a criminal record, there are few rewards for conventional behavior.”
Mears added: “Another example is certainty of punishment. Policy has almost exclusively focused on creating tougher punishments, which has led to substantial investments in prisons. But, for a number of reasons, greater certainty of punishment may do more to deter crime.”
“These are some of the basic ideas that have kind of gotten lost in the literature—and in policy—through the years.”
Mears added: “It is unfortunate because there are tremendous implications for policy. For example, we have punishment policies where deterrence is assumed to happen, but in reality has no effect on crime and might even worsen it. There also are possibilities for improving public safety. We can do a better job in deterring crime. A simple approach is to invest in strategies that enable individuals to get jobs. Doing so can produce many benefits, and one is to increase the potential deterrent effect of punishment.”
Mears is the director of the Corrections Research and Policy Institute in the College’s Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research and is the Mark C. Stafford Professor of Criminology, a chair named after his coauthor.
“We hope people draw on the book to create greater insight into crime, and to contribute to evidence-based policy and practice,” he said. “For us, the science alone is fascinating. But the relevance for policy is tremendous. Deterrence will always be part of the reason we punish crime. Yet, the irony is that punishment alone may not deter much at all if we do not address the full complexity of the deterrence process. The book provides a way of thinking differently about how we can deter crime.”
For more information, visit the Corrections Research and Policy Institute