The Theory and Testing of the Reconceptualization of General and Specif

The Theory and Testing of the Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, the introduction of the reconceptualized deterrence theory was presented, explaining that general and specific deterrence are both functions of crime. Mark C. Stafford, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Rural Sociologist at Washington State University, and Mark Warr, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, introduced this theory. They argued that there is no reason to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that centers on indirect experience with legal punishment and punishment avoidance and direct experience with legal punishment and avoidance.1 General deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal acts performed by others and the consequences or absence of consequences from the activity. Specific deterrence relies upon personal experience of punishment and the avoidance of punishment for a criminal activity previously committed. Both Stafford and Warr theorized that people are exposed to both types of deterrents, with some people exposed to more of one type than the other. In addition both general and specific deterrence effects may coincide with each other and act as reinforcement.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the May 1995 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency a preliminary test was conducted on Stafford and Warr’s deterrence theory. Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, both professors in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, attempted to elaborate on Stafford and Warr’s original findings. They, Paternoster and Piquero, argued that although they could find some support for the basic features of the deterrence theory, there was still a significant component that Paternoster and Piquero could not address. Without being able to measure the consequences of the illegal behavior of their respondents’ peers, they could not separate the effects of indirect punishment avoidance from indirect punishment.2 Furthermore, they claimed that the personal experience of punishment had a definite role in substance abuse, as well as leading to additional criminal activities because of formal sanctions.   &nbs... ...eory. Though further testing needs to establish if this theory is correct, it will provide a single theory for deterrence, eliminating the possibility of accidentally excluding essential issues, and provide more resources to those trying to distinguish between deterrence and defiance. 1 Mark Stafford and Mark Warr, â€Å"A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence,† Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1993): 133. 2 Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, â€Å"Reconceptualizing Deterrence: An Empirical Test of Personal and Vicarious Experiences,† Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32 (1995): 281. 3 Stafford and Warr 123. 4 R.F. Meier and W.T. Johnson, â€Å"Deterrence as a Social Control: The Legal and Extra Legal Production of Conformity,† American Sociological Review 42 (1977): 294-95. 5 Stafford and Warr 125. 6 Stafford and Warr 126. 7 Stafford and Warr 128. 8 Stafford and Warr 128. 9 Stafford and Warr 133. 10 Paternoster and Piquero 261. 11 Paternoster and Piquero 263. 12 Paternoster and Piquero 263. 13 Paternoster and Piquero 264. 14 Paternoster and Piquero 284. 15 Paternoster and Piquero 272. 16 Paternoster and Piquero 278. 17 Paternoster and Piquero 276.