Deterrence: Testing the Effects of Perceived Sanction Certainty on Probation Violations

Maxwell, Sheila Royo; Gray, M. Kevin

doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.2000.tb00901.x

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Carefully designed treatment services are effective for building prosocial lifestyles and for restoring disrupted families (Chaiken & Chaiken, 2003). However, the behaviors of drug-using offenders are susceptible to legal pressures or penal threats as well (Corman & Morcan, 2000;Maxwell & Gray, 2000;Young & Belenko, 2002). Treatment without the presence of certain sanctions against current or future rule violations is inadequate, as is punishment without the realistic promise of life transformation offered by effective treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders

Sung

Richter

2006

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders

Sung

Richter

2006

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Across these programs and their evaluations, a common trend regarding deterrence studies becomes apparent. The three core components of the deterrence doctrine (certainty, celerity, and severity) are rarely evaluated together within a single policy (e.g., Maxwell and Gray, ). Even when considering the wide number of contemporary efforts assessing the impact of deterrence principles in sentencing and corrections (e.g., Three‐Strikes or Truth‐in‐Sentencing laws; see Bottoms, ; Campbell, ; Simon, ; Walker, ; Wilson, ), one or more elements is omitted from nearly all examinations.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Swift and Certain Sanctions

Hamilton

Campbell

Wormer

et al. 2016

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Christopher M. Campbell P o r t l a n d S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Jacqueline van Wormer W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Alex Kigerl W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Brianne Posey W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Research SummaryIn the wake of the mass incarceration movement, many states must now manage the rebound of decarceration. Thermodynamic forces of the justice system, however, have pushed former fiscal pressures of institutions onto that of community corrections. Encouraged by the positive findings of recently piloted innovations, several jurisdictions have taken great interest in the implementation of deterrence-based sanctioning models when dealing with supervision violations. Among the first to implement a statewide turn to this style of sanctioning, Washington State's swift-and-certain (SAC) policy was implemented in June 2012. The intent of SAC was to expand the model found in Hawaii's Opportunity Probation and Enforcement (HOPE) to a wider criminal justiceEvaluating Offenders On Community Supervision population, while emphasizing the reduction of confinement costs. This study focused on the impact of SAC with regard to supervision outcomes for participants. By using a quasi-experimental design, we examined confinement, recidivism, treatment, violation, and costs outcomes of SAC participants. Findings reveal that SAC participants were found to incur fewer sanctioned incarceration days after a violation, reduced odds of recidivism, possessed greater treatment program utilization, reduced their propensity of committing violations over time, and as a result, imposed lower correctional and associated costs. The SAC model provides noteworthy positive effects and no appreciable negative impacts on public safety. Policy ImplicationsWe further discuss the impact of SAC in the context of deterrence-based sanctioning. Specifically, we explain how practices such as SAC may impact the future of sanctioning community supervision conditions. Although many policies that emphasize deterrence demonstrate inconsistent findings, immediate advantages of SAC take the form of fiscal savings, indicating that these novel methods provide a form of justice reinvestment. Additionally, connecting deterrence-based supervision methods to reductions in most recidivism measures suggests that proportionality and quality assurance may increase the effectiveness of these policies. We recommend ways that such nuanced implementation may be fruitful, as well as suggest ways of conceptualizing the theory of deterrence. Policy makers can appropriately work its components into supervision practice without depreciating the importance of treatment and addressing criminogenic needs.

show abstract

“…Deterrent Theory (DT) applies the expectation of punishment to discourage youth offenders from reoffending (e.g. underage alcohol consumption, drug use) [ 35 , 89 , 90 ]. Maxwell proposed that the sole purpose of punishment issued by criminal law-enforcing bodies is to deter future crimes, a principle of the judicial system [ 89 , 91 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing behaviour ‘more or less’—do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplementing evidence-based care requires healthcare practitioners to do less of some things (de-implementation) and more of others (implementation). Variations in effectiveness of behaviour change interventions may result from failure to consider a distinction between approaches by which behaviour increases and decreases in frequency. The distinction is not well represented in methods for designing interventions. This review aimed to identify whether there is a theoretical rationale to support this distinction.MethodsUsing Critical Interpretative Synthesis, this conceptual review included papers from a broad range of fields (biology, psychology, education, business) likely to report approaches for increasing or decreasing behaviour. Articles were identified from databases using search terms related to theory and behaviour change. Articles reporting changes in frequency of behaviour and explicit use of theory were included. Data extracted were direction of behaviour change, how theory was operationalised, and theory-based recommendations for behaviour change. Analyses of extracted data were conducted iteratively and involved inductive coding and critical exploration of ideas and purposive sampling of additional papers to explore theoretical concepts in greater detail.ResultsCritical analysis of 66 papers and their theoretical sources identified three key findings: (1) 9 of the 15 behavioural theories identified do not distinguish between implementation and de-implementation (5 theories were applied to only implementation or de-implementation, not both); (2) a common strategy for decreasing frequency was substituting one behaviour with another. No theoretical basis for this strategy was articulated, nor were methods proposed for selecting appropriate substitute behaviours; (3) Operant Learning Theory makes an explicit distinction between techniques for increasing and decreasing frequency.DiscussionBehavioural theories provide little insight into the distinction between implementation and de-implementation. Operant Learning Theory identified different strategies for implementation and de-implementation, but these strategies may not be acceptable in health systems. Additionally, if behaviour substitution is an approach for de-implementation, further investigation may inform methods or rationale for selecting the substitute behaviour.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0826-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Deterrence: Testing the Effects of Perceived Sanction Certainty on Probation Violations

Cited by 28 publications

References 35 publications

Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders

Contextual barriers to successful reentry of recovering drug offenders

Impact of Swift and Certain Sanctions

Changing behaviour ‘more or less’—do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About