Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century.¶
Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199-263.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Coercion
- In law enforcement and criminal justice, the penalty schedule is coercion at scale — calibrated to deter offenses (general and specific deterrence) and, in continuing forms like per-diem fines or contempt sanctions, to compel compliance — and the criminological finding that perceived probability of capture coerces more than severity of sentence is a fact about coercion's belief-dependence.
This sourceReviews the evidence that the certainty (perceived probability of apprehension) of punishment deters more reliably than its severity.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Nagin's abstract states that certainty of apprehension, not severity of the legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent, and that deterrent effects depend on risk perceptions.
“The evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is far more consistent than that for the severity of punishment. However, the evidence in support of certainty's effect pertains almost exclusively to apprehension probability. Consequently, the more precise statement is that certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent.”
- In law enforcement and criminal justice, the penalty schedule is coercion at scale — calibrated to deter offenses (general and specific deterrence) and, in continuing forms like per-diem fines or contempt sanctions, to compel compliance — and the criminological finding that perceived probability of capture coerces more than severity of sentence is a fact about coercion's belief-dependence.
- Deterrence
- In criminal law, penalties are calibrated for general deterrence (others will not offend) and specific deterrence (this offender will not reoffend).
This sourceReviews the criminological evidence that the perceived certainty (probability) of apprehension dominates sentence severity in deterring crime — the probability-over-magnitude finding.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract backs the probability-over-severity finding (certainty of apprehension deters more than severity of sentence), but states no doubling arithmetic for sentences versus clearance rates.
“Consequently, the more precise statement is that certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent. This conclusion has important policy implications among which are that lengthy prison sentences and mandatory minimum sentencing cannot be justified on deterrence.”
- In criminal law, penalties are calibrated for general deterrence (others will not offend) and specific deterrence (this offender will not reoffend).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:ab913dc6c882 · see in the full table