The Theory and Testing of the Reconceptualization of General and Specif

The Theory and Testing of the Reconceptualization of General and Specific DeterrenceIn the May 1993 issue of the Journal of question in execration and Delinquency, the entranceway of the reconceptualized bullying theory was presented, explaining that general and specific bullying ar both(prenominal) functions of crime. Mark C. Stafford, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Rural Sociologist at capital of the United States State University, and Mark Warr, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, introduced this theory. They argued that thither is no reason to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that centers on indirect experience with effective penalisation and punishment avoidance and direct experience with legal punishment and avoidance.1 General deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal acts performed by others and the consequences or absence of consequences from the activity. Specific deterrence relies upon individual(prenominal) experience of punishment and the avoidance of punishment for a criminal activity previously committed. Both Stafford and Warr theorized that people are exposed to both types of deterrents, with some people exposed to more of one and only(a) type than the other. In addition both general and specific deterrence effects may coincide with each other and act as reinforcement.In the May 1995 issue of the Journal of Research in plague and Delinquency a preliminary test was conducted on Stafford and Warrs deterrence theory. Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, both professors in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, essay to elaborate on Stafford and Warrs original findings. They, Paternoster and Piquero, argued that although they could find some back down for the basic features of the deterrence theory, there was still a significant broker that Paternoster and Piquero co uld non address. Without being able to measure the consequences of the illegal behavior of their respondents peers, they could not separate the effects of indirect punishment avoidance from indirect punishment.2 Furthermore, they claimed that the personal experience of punishment had a definite role in core abuse, as well as leading to additional criminal activities because of glob sanctions.&nbs... ...eory. Though further testing needs to establish if this theory is correct, it depart provide a single theory for deterrence, eliminating the possibility of accidentally excluding natural issues, and provide more resources to those trying to distinguish between deterrence and defiance.1 Mark Stafford and Mark Warr, A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1993) 133.2 Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, Reconceptualizing Deterrence An observational Test of Personal and Vicarious Experiences, Journal of Research i n Crime and Delinquency 32 (1995) 281.3 Stafford and Warr 123.4 R.F. Meier and W.T. Johnson, Deterrence as a Social Control The Legal and Extra Legal Production of Conformity, American Sociological Review 42 (1977) 294-95.5 Stafford and Warr 125.6 Stafford and Warr 126.7 Stafford and Warr 128.8 Stafford and Warr 128.9 Stafford and Warr 133.10 Paternoster and Piquero 261.11 Paternoster and Piquero 263.12 Paternoster and Piquero 263.13 Paternoster and Piquero 264.14 Paternoster and Piquero 284.15 Paternoster and Piquero 272.16 Paternoster and Piquero 278.17 Paternoster and Piquero 276.