Specific deterrence in criminal justice refers to crime prevention achieved through instilling fear in the specific individual being punished. Specific deterrence refrains or prevents specific individual being from future violation of the law. Specific deterrence is also referred to as individual deterrence. Specific deterrence can be seen as the impact of the actual legal punishment on those who are apprehended. Three Strikes law mandate state courts to impose harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious criminal offenses. Specific deterrence results from actual experiences with detection, prosecution, and punishment of offenders.
Selective Incapacitation is provided for under dangerous offender legislation. Traffic law enforcement influences driving behaviour through two processes: general deterrence and specific deterrence. General deterrence can be defined as the impact of the threat of legal punishment on the public at large. General deterrence results from the perception of the public that laws are enforced and that there is a risk of detection when laws are violated.
Specific Deterrence and Sentence Length, The Case of Drunk Drivers - MICHAEL WEINRATH and JOHN GARTRELL. Relatively little attention has been paid to the specific deterrent effects of longer custody sentences on individual offenders. The authors evaluated the effect of sentence length on drunk driving recidivism by using official records in a retrospective research design. The authors observed that sentence length exerted consistent deterrent effects on repeat drunk driving, even for chronic offenders. Shorter sentences were less effective in discouraging drunk driving criminal recidivism, while sentences longer than 6 months did not produce additional benefits.
A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence - MARK C. STAFFORD, MARK WARR. The distinction between general deterrence and specific deterrence is widely recognized and accepted by deterrence researchers, and is used commonly to classify deterrence studies. However, the logical and empirical evidence grounds for the distinction are not as clear as they might appear, and the conventional conception has done more to obfuscate than to clarify the deterrence process. The authors propose a reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence, and apply it to several current controversies in the deterrence literature.
Reconceptualizing Deterrence: An Empirical Test of Personal and Vicarious Experiences. RAYMOND PATERNOSTER, ALEX PIQUERO. Stafford and Warr (1993) presented a reconceptualization of the general deterrence and specific deterrence doctrines where general deterrence is taken to be the result of persons' vicarious experiences. Specific deterrence is taken to be the result of persons' own personal experiences. They argue that their version of specific deterrence theory promises some insight into current controversies in the literature. The authors first review and expand Stafford and Warr's reconceptualization of specific deterrence, and then subject some central hypothesis to empirical test.
SPECIFIC DETERRENCE REVISITED: A QUASI-EXPERIMENT
ON SENTENCE SEVERITY AND RECIDIVISM -
Abstract: The guidelines specify that at age 26 an offender's juvenile record is discounted from the calculations, resulting in a lower sentencing grid placement and a shorter sentence. I examine in depth the appropriateness of this treatment rule as an instrumental variable for research and find that it is an effective instrument. The study also examines preliminary results produced by using an instrumental variable to estimate a relationship between sentence severity and recidivism. The use of instrumental variables corrects for the selection bias present in other studies in this area by allowing me to compare individuals affected by the treatment rule.
Parole as Institutional Control: A Test of Specific Deterrence and Offender Misconduct. Jon L. Proctor, Michael Pease, Westfield State College. The use of parole as an institutional control mechanism is designed to reward inmate conformity with early release and punish nonconformity with continued confinement. Results show lower rates of postreview misconduct for offenders denied parole hearings compared to offenders granted parole hearings. Deterrence was strongest for high- and medium-rate offenders who were denied parole hearings. Misconduct also decreased for high-rate offenders who were granted parole hearings.
Specific deterrence and the DUI offender: The impact of a decade of reform
Kingsnorth, Rodney; Alvis, Lisa; Gavia, Glori. Abstract: In contrast to other jurisdictions reported in the literature, legal reform mandating increased penalties was implemented rigorously by the judicial community. An extremely strong relationship was observed between socioeconomic status and defendant's choice of sanction.
Does Imprisonment Create Specific Deterrence? Empirical Analysis of Recidivism of
Finnish Prisoners - Anssi Keinanen and Tuukka Saarimaa.
Abstract: We study the specific deterrence effects of imprisonment. We model the probability of recidivism of Finnish convicts who were released from prison followed for four years after their release by estimating a logistic regression analysis model. We find that the probability of recidivism reduces with age. This is true for both men and women, although for women the pattern is less clear.
Judges in the punitive juvenile court: Organizational, career and ideological influences on sanctioning orientation - Bazemore, Gordon; Feder, Lynette. Abstract: Descriptive findings indicate strong support for both incapacitation and specific deterrence ideologies, and somewhat weaker commitment to retributive motivations for punishing juvenile offenders. One independent variable, however, victim emphasis, exerted a strong negative effect on retributive orientation and support for the incapacitation goal, but a moderate positive influence on specific deterrence.