Literature Review

Prerna Tiwari – Concept of Deterrent Theory

In this paper, Prerna Tiwari1 lays down the fundamental notion of deterrence theory of
punishment, whereby people are dissuaded from committing a crime if the punishment
awarded to an individual is certain, swift, and severe. This leads us to her argument about the
three components of deterrent theory – severity, certainty, and celerity. She opens a
discussion on the relevance and relative significance of each of these components, illustrating
the various groups that existing scholars are divided into. My paper seeks to explore the
relative significance of these components with more emphasis on the former two.
Her paper then delves into and lays the framework of the types of deterrence, namely,
general, specific and incapacitation. An interesting part of her paper was how incapacitation
renders a person unable to commit a crime which pushes one to ask whether the complete
denial of rehabilitation furthers the goals of deterrence or has counter-intuitive effects.

John Ball – The Deterrence Concept in Criminology and Law

In his paper, John Ball2 goes one step further and lays down a framework of factors, beyond
certainty and severity, that determine the effectiveness of the deterrence theory. These include
and are not restricted to the social structure and value system and the individual’s knowledge
of the law as well as its prescribed punishment. He elaborates on how social factors,
including society’s respect for the legal ideology, play a significant role in the effectiveness of
punishment and must not be omitted from consideration.
The second section of his paper brings out the drawbacks in analyzing the validity of existing
empirical data, portraying it through analysis of the death penalty, leading to the question of
scientific analysis of a concept. This paper brings out questions such as the optimal number,
variety, and method of analyzing factors required to test the effect of deterrence theory.

Frank Booker – The Deterrent Effect of Punishment

Frank Booker starts his piece3 with the question concerning the application of indeterministic
theories to what criminologists believe are deterministic crimes. He brings to the fore certain
overlooked aspects such as the category of a person on whom the measures of deterrence are
focused and the types of crimes having different underlying factors. The idea of deterrence
being more effective with instrumental crimes rather than expressive crimes is put forth by
Chambliss4 in his paper which leads us to ask whether a general theory of deterrence can be
applied to every crime and whether taking into account the category of person and type of
crime is possible for every punishment given.
1
Prerna Tiwari, "Concept of Deterrent Theory," International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 5
(2022): 862-868
2
John C. Ball, "The Deterrence Concept in Criminology and Law," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and
Police Science 46, no. 3 (1955-1956): 347-354
3
Frank Brooker, "The Deterrent Effect of Punishment," Criminology 9, no. 4 (February 1972): 469-490
4
William J. Chambliss, "Types of Deviance and the Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions," Wisconsin Law Review
1967, no. 3 (1967): 703-719
It further provides a basis to explore various directions of research and look at methods that
delve into isolating variables affecting deterrence to reach comprehensive conclusions.
Moreover, the most striking question that arises is whether the rate of recidivism can be used
as a common measure of the variables involved.

Michael Geerken, Walter Gove – Deterrence: Some Theoretical Considerations

This paper5 takes a different turn, discussing recent developments that show punishment can
effectively control behavior in certain situations. It lays down the tendency of an individual to
maximize profits by striking a balance between estimated risk and estimated gains from the
commission of a crime and subsequently, conditions under which deterrence has an effect. An
interesting aspect of the paper was the emphasis on the communication network required to
convey the system of deterrence to potential offenders through formal and informal channels.
It elaborates upon experiential evidence being more accurate than information from sources
that portray the legal system to be more effective than it is. Does firsthand or secondhand
experience with crime reduce the effectiveness of punishment? Does mass media increase the
effectiveness of deterrence? Can we, on the basis ofbased on these questions, conclude that
crime feeds into itself in areas that already have a high rate of crime?

Gordon Tullock – Does Punishment Deter Crime

While the other papers deal with the background of deterrence theory and ways to determine
its effectiveness, this paper6 puts forth arguments that show deterrence is an effective
penological goal. The first half of the paper is divided into how studies carried out by
economists and sociologists differed in the beginning but effectively, had the same
conclusion. He references an early study done by Arleen Leibowitz in the USA that showed
states having a higher level of punishment showed fewer crimes, keeping all other factors
constant. This was further supported by more comprehensive studies undertaken by several
others, concluding in favor of deterrence being effective.
Tullock goes on to argue that the mere effectiveness of deterrence is not sufficient to justify
its utilization. This leads to the question that my paper presents – whether deterrence is
effective enough and worth forgoing rehabilitative and reformative measures for.

5
Michael R. Geerken; Walter R. Gove, "Deterrence: Some Theoretical Considerations," Law & Society Review
9, no. 3 (Spring 1975): 497-514
6
Gordon Tullock, “Does Punishment Deter Crime,” The Public Interest, no. 36 (Summer 1974): 103