 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
editDeterrence is the primary theory of punishment in the United States legal system. I don't understand the point about that sentence. Isn't deterrence the "primary theory" of all punis
The history of public punishment informs us that the proposition that legal threats deter potential offenders and thereby limit crime is an ancient universal belief which is denied by five decades of published empirical evidence. (See e.g. Sellin 1967. Chircos and Waldo.1973. The Panel On Deterrence and Incapacitation. Blumstein et al. 1978. Scneider 1992.) The consistent and uniform body of evidence demonstrating a substantial reductive influence of deterrence upon crime does not present. There is not even a consistent body of evidence showing a discernible reductive effect. The evidences tend to be marginal and are contradictory and confusing. Some appear to show that legal threats limit illegal behaviours, some that they have no effect and some that they are crime-causal. The standard general deterrence proposition is founded upon at least five major assumptions,all of them falsified,and it fully satisfies only one of twelve presented objective deterrence criteria. It was demonstrated in 1970 that the orthodox deterrence premise is evidentially denied, intellectually bankrupt and scientifically unsustainable. In short, standard deterrence is prehistoric superstition. [email protected]
- Tu es sérieuse? <LePierrotAnguille 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Any research done on crime rates in relation to the severity of punishment, has only been performed in Western nations. I assure you, crime rates under repressive regimes are far lower than in the West. (Evidently Kim Jong Il knows his utilitarian calculus better than you.) Typos 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
i am not sure about crime rates in repressive regimes. but i know that it is unwise to conceive of deterrence per se; one needs to consider the likelihood and efficiency of enforcement as well, for they are inseparable. deterrence is only useless to the extent that there is no one to catch you committing the crime. i am sure that if the level of enforcement is high, the value of deterrence is amplified. i do not believe this statement can be contradicted. Chensiyuan 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)