NCJ Number
73175
Date Published
1978
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This essay argues that lack of a single penal policy in the United States as well as numerous unresolved issues in deterrence research prevent definitive conclusion's about the extent to which deterrence is a part of current U.S. penal policy.
Abstract
The absence of a clearly stated, identifiable penal policy within the American criminal justice system can be inferred from criticisms levelled at it from diametrically opposite viewpoints. Ernest van den Haag, an advocate of retribution as deterrence, critizes U.S. penal policy for excessive leniency, whereas Karl Menninger, proponent of the medical model of criminology, perceives such policy as harshly punitive. Governmental agencies, such as LEAA, support programs and research as though the penal policies of U.S. jurisdiction are obvious. A review of deterrence literature indicates that, for example, sociologist Emile Durkheim is not concerned with deterrence, manifest or latent, as a function of punishment. On the other hand, such Marxist criminologists as Ian Taylor implicitly postulate the deterrent effectiveness of existing penal policies when they criticize them as mechanisms of social control. Criminologists have virtually the relationship between due process and the deterrence doctrine; for example, unrestrained attempts to increase the certainty of punishment for crime could lead to flagrant due process violations by law enforcement officers. In addition, in the renewal of deterrence research, only one study has focused on the extent and accuracy of public knowledge of criminal law. An additional issue is whether relatively accurate knowledge. Additional issues related to research on deterrence are discussed, and 24 references are provided.