Minimally Sufficient Deterrence

Abstract

Dangers exist in both maximalist approaches to deterrence and minimalist ones. A minimal sufficiency strategy aims to avert these dangers. The objectives are to convince people that the webs of relationships within which they live mean that lawbreaking will ultimately lead to desistance and remorse and to persuading offenders that predatory crime is simply wrong. Alternative support and control strategies should be attempted until desistance finally occurs. Communities can be helped to understand that this is how minimally sufficient deterrence works. By relying on layered strategies, this approach takes deterrence theory onto the terrain of complexity theory. It integrates approaches based on social support and recovery capital, dynamic concentration of deterrence, restorative justice, shame and pride management, responsive regulation, responsivity, indirect reciprocity, and incapacitation. Deterrence fails when it rejects complexity in favor of simple theories such as rational choice. Some criminologists are inclined to question why any role should be given to deterrent crime prevention strategies. The evidence for the power of deterrence in reducing crime is thin, after all (Nagin 2013; Chalfin and McCrary 2017; Tonry 2018). There are three reasons why deterrence should have a role. One is that a good meta-strategy for crime control achieves strength through the convergence of weaknesses: deterrence can help to motivate crime control strategies that are more effective than

Regulatory Mix, Collective Efficacy, and Crimes of the Powerful

“…Good design of the pyramid means that the cut through of the most important tools, like prosecution, is not blunted through overuse. Moreover, responsive regulatory theory argues that good dynamic design of regulatory mix can mean that some tools lower in the pyramid help to sharpen the impact of others higher in the pyramid (Braithwaite, 2018). For example, a firm might be let off with a warning letter accompanied by securing agreement that if the inspector comes back in a few months and this problem has recurred, then management agrees that it will be fair for it to suffer the financial consequences of cutting off new admissions to a nursing home.…”

Real Lives and Lost Lives: Making Sense of ‘Locked in’ Responses to Intimate Partner Homicide

“…Addressing a different issue (that of deterrence), Braithwaite (2018) proposes seven principles of crime prevention for minimally sufficient deterrence to be operative. Central to these principles is the concept of 'inexorability'.…”

Aplicaciones Educativas en Secundaria Para La Prevención De La Criminalización Estudiantil: Un Enfoque Desde La Justicia Restaurativa Y Los Derechos Humanos

“…El daño, cuando se da, es causado por las acciones de las personas, por lo que se hace necesario rechazar toda acción que genere un mal a individuos, propiedades o grupos. No obstante, rechazar la conducta no significa de ninguna manera rechazar a la persona, la cual es reconocida y se afirma su capacidad y responsabilidad para reparar el daño y recuperar su lugar en la sociedad (Braithwaite, 2018).…”

“…Desde el artículo 1 se plantea que todos los seres humanos son iguales en dignidad y derechos y deben comportarse fraternalmente los unos con los otros (DUDH, 1948). Un abordaje restaurativo parte del principio de separación entre acción y sujeto (Braithwaite, 1989;Braithwaite, 2018), al afirmar que toda persona tiene el potencial de contribuir con la sociedad y que su conducta impacta a su comunidad, por lo que el objetivo de las prácticas restaurativas es fomentar ambientes seguros para un sano sentido de conexión y pertenencia. Esto resuena también con el artículo 3, sobre el derecho a la seguridad: toda conducta que genere una ruptura en el entretejido social se considera inaceptable y se procurará un manejo apropiado para atender, más allá de las reglas o normas desafiadas, el daño causado, mediante acciones que detengan el daño, la reparación y la restauración de los vínculos (Costello, et al, 2010).…”