Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in Criminal

Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime?

Deterrence Theory in Criminal

Justice Policy: A Primer

About this Publication

This publication discusses the

theory of criminal deterrence

as a factor in changing

criminal justice policy.

By Ben Johnson, Legislative

Analyst

January 2019

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2

The Economic Model of Deterrence ................................................................................... 3

Broad Policy Changes and Declining National Crime Rates ............................................... 8

Natural Experiments ......................................................................................................... 12

Policy Considerations ........................................................................................................ 16

Using Deterrence Theory to Develop Policy ..................................................................... 17

Questions to Ask When Assessing Policy .......................................................................... 18

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 18

This publication was prepared by Ben Johnson, a legislative analyst specializing in the area of criminal

justice policy. Questions can be addressed to Ben at 651-296-8957.

Minnesota House Research Department provides nonpartisan legislative, legal, and

information services to the Minnesota House of Representatives. This document can

be made available in alternative formats.

www.house.mn/hrd | 651-296-6753 | 600 State Office Building | St. Paul, MN 55155

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 1

Executive Summary

This publication discusses criminal deterrence, which is one theory legislators can use to assess

possible changes in criminal justice policy.

When legislators consider changes to criminal justice policy, they often face the question of whether

the changes will prevent people from committing crimes. Legislators in Minnesota may look to other

states to see if changes there produced any noticeable effect, but that information may not always

present a complete picture. Another tool for legislators is deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory was first described in the late 1700s, but received new attention in the 1960s.

Academic studies since then have looked at the relationship between the severity of punishment, the

certainty that a criminal will be punished, and the speed with which the punishment will be inflicted.

Looking at both long-term trends and smaller case studies, research has shed light on behaviors that

can be deterred most easily, policy changes that have little deterrent effect, and the types of actions

that are most likely to prevent people from committing crimes. For example, research has shown

that:

 crimes involving conscious planning can be more easily deterred than those that relate to

addiction or sudden emotions;

 increases to prison sentences that are already lengthy have little deterrent effect; and

 policies that increase the likelihood of being caught deter crime more effectively than those

that increase punishment.

Deterrence theory can help legislators craft and assess policy proposals.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 2

Introduction

“Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their

attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.”

– John Jay, Federalist Papers

One of the primary responsibilities of a government is to protect its citizens from crime, but preventing

crime can take many forms. There is evidence that crime is disproportionately concentrated in

economically distressed areas and that reducing poverty can also reduce crime.

Addressing mental

illness can also lower crime rates.

There is an undisputed link between addiction and crime, and

providing chemical dependency treatment is particularly effective at reducing property crime rates.

The

most common method of addressing crime, though, is through enforcement and punishment.

The government identifies actions it wants to prohibit—assault, selling drugs, driving while intoxicated,

speeding—and establishes a consequence for people who take those actions. Consequences exist for

several reasons: they punish dangerous behavior, require some form of repayment to society,

incapacitate individuals who are seen as likely to commit other offenses, and send the message that

society has certain values, morals, or expectations.

Several theories of public safety support these policy methods of enforcing laws and punishing

offenders. The theory of incapacitation suggests that holding certain individuals in jail or prison will

prevent those individuals from committing new crimes. Rehabilitation theories suggest that directing

offenders to certain treatment or training programs will change that individual and keep him or her from

committing new offenses. Retributive theories suggest that a person who makes an intentional decision

to violate the law should be punished for that decision so that the person can pay a debt to society and

then return with a blank slate. Denunciation theory combines several other theories and holds that

punishing someone publicly will prevent others from committing the offense due to the stigma of the

offense, and will also serve as a form of retribution. Each of those theories can support criminal justice

policies and serve as a valid lens through which to view policies. But legislators often identify another

reason to justify changes to criminal law—deterrence.

Deterrence is the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators, but also discourage other

people from committing similar offenses. Many people point to the need to deter criminal actions after

a high-profile incident in which an offender is seen to have received a light sentence. Some argue that a

tougher sentence would have prevented the tragedy and can prevent a similar tragedy from taking place

in the future.

But does the creation of a new crime, or the increase in an existing penalty, deter people from

committing crimes? The answer is complex. Legislators seeking to prevent or reduce crime through

enforcement and punishment have a variety of policy options to consider. Over the last fifty years,

academic studies have examined different techniques from a variety of angles. Legislators may choose

to draw on this information to craft effective policies, or assess the likely deterrent effect of proposed

legislation.

This publication focuses on the theory of general deterrence by explaining the theoretical basis of

deterrence theory, reviewing academic studies, and providing a summary of what legislators can

consider if deterrence is a goal.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 3

The Economic Model of Deterrence

“The first objective is to prevent all sorts of offences as far as this is worthwhile; therefore, the

value of the punishment must always be sufficient to outweigh the value of the profit of the

offence.”

– Jeremy Bentham, 18th century philosopher

The Historical Roots of Deterrence Theory

The roots of modern deterrence theory stretch to the time when the United States was coming into

existence. An Italian philosopher and economist, Ceasare Beccaria, wrote Essay on Crimes and

Punishments in 1764 and Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher and reformer, wrote An Introduction

to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (introduction to the Principles) in 1781.

Beccaria wrote that laws exist to allow a united society, free from the threat of war and chaos. He

assumed that each individual member of this society will “always endeavor to take away from the mass,

not only his own portion, but to encroach on that of others.”

Laws were necessary, therefore, and a

violation of laws should result in punishment whose purpose “is no other, than to prevent others from

committing the like offence.”

He argued that punishment must be proportionate to the crime

committed because, if two crimes have an equal punishment, “there is nothing to deter men from

committing the greater” when that crime carries a greater advantage.

Beccaria also emphasized that

punishment should occur as immediately after the commission of a crime as possible and added that

crimes “are more effectually prevented by the certainty, than the severity of punishment.”

Bentham’s theories were similar. He began from the proposition that humans are governed by pain and

pleasure.

He argued that every action a person takes is to increase happiness. This principle of utility

held that people act to either produce advantage or prevent pain or unhappiness.

The value of a

pleasure or pain depends on its intensity, duration, certainty, and nearness.

Both theories of human behavior suggested that the desire to seek pleasure and increase one’s own

position by taking more than a fair share drives human actions. But, under the theory that action is

rational, people can be deterred from harming others by establishing punishments for certain acts.

Beccaria and Bentham expected potential criminals to compare the expected benefit of committing a

crime with the benefit of not committing a crime.

In short, the theory held that if you increase the cost

of committing a crime enough, people will not commit the crime.

A Modern Makeover

“The approach taken here follows the economists’ usual analysis of choice and assumes that a

person commits an offense if the expected utility to him exceeds the utility he could get by

using his time and other resources at other activities.”

– Gary Becker, economist and sociologist

Deterrence theory received a modern makeover in 1968 when Gary Becker published Crime and

Punishment: An Economic Approach.

Becker, a professor of economics and sociology at the University

of Chicago, argued that understanding criminal behavior did not depend on whether individuals had

properly developed social standards, psychological inadequacies, or special inherited traits. Rather, he

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 4

suggested, criminal behavior came down to an economic theory of choice: some individuals become

criminals because their individual benefits and costs are different from those of the noncriminal, and not

because the person has different basic motivations. Becker emphasized that an increase in the

likelihood of apprehension would have a greater impact on the number of offenses than an increase in

punishment. He also noted that making legal activities more attractive, such as an increase in legal

income, would shift the balance and make it more likely that a person would not commit a crime.

This model of deterrence is known as the “economic model of rational deterrence.”

Under the theory,

since criminal acts are the result of a rational, conscious decision, preventing crime involves finding the

balance between increasing the cost of crime and creating an expensive police state that eliminates

personal freedom. Once the cost of committing an offense is too high, criminals will not commit the

offense. The theory assumes that there is no difference between criminal and noncriminals, other than

their assessment of the costs and benefits of committing crimes.

The Three Components of Deterrence Theory: Certainty, Celerity,

and Severity

“Many public officials in the United States have advocated the use of more severe penal

sanctions as a means of deterring crime. Unfortunately, very little research has been conducted

to ascertain the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, or to determine the possible impact of

longer prison sentences on levels of serious crime.”

– George Antunes and A. Lee Hunt, professors

The works of Beccaria, Bentham, and Becker led to a theory of criminal deterrence involving a three-

pronged approach in which certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment work together to increase the

cost of an action so that a rational person will determine that the cost outweighs the benefit.

Certainty applies to the likelihood of being caught. The threat of a severe punishment is not effective

if there is no possibility of ever being caught.

Celerity applies to the speed of a consequence. A punishment imposed immediately after an offense

is more effective than one that is imposed years after the offense.

Severity of punishment is a necessary component since a rational person might commit a crime that

brings a benefit even if punishment is swift and sure when the punishment is insignificant. In addition,

the punishment serves as an example to others in society so that everyone is aware that a certain action

is unacceptable.

Under the economic theory of deterrence, an increase in the cost of crime should deter people from

committing the crime, and there is evidence that individuals who believe they are likely to be arrested

and punished are less likely to commit a crime than those who do not expect to be captured or

punished.

To increase the cost, the government can increase the likelihood that a person will be

caught, the speed with which a person receives a punishment, or the severity of that punishment.

Determining the extent to which these changes actually deter crime involves testing the assumption

that the crime rate will be lower if there is an increase in the certainty, celerity, or severity of legal

punishment.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 5

It is easiest to change the severity of punishment. Increasing the certainty that an offender will be

caught requires more enforcement efforts or a change in police practices. Attempts to increase the

speed of a consequence face constitutional challenges related to the right of due process, and also must

address the realities of a busy court system. Increasing the level of punishment, however, simply

requires legislation that strikes an existing penalty and replaces it with a greater penalty.

But are the three components equal?

Severity

Severity of punishment was long thought to be the key component in deterring criminal

behavior.

As a result, lawmakers relied on the use of severe sanctions to deter crime.

However, little research examined the deterrent effect of severe punishments until the 1960s.

Initial research supported the theory that severe punishments deter crime. A series of studies

examining homicide rates found that the severity of punishment for homicide had a deterrent

effect.

However, when the examination expanded beyond homicide, there was a surprise: the

severity of the penalty had a positive effect on the crimes of rape, assault, larceny, robbery,

burglary, and auto theft.

That is, severity of punishment did not deter crime. If anything, it had

the opposite effect.

Severe penalties may serve other valuable purposes in criminal justice policy. They may

incapacitate particular individuals and prevent those individuals from committing crimes for a

period of time, they may publicly denounce certain actions, or they may provide an opportunity

to provide rehabilitating treatment. However, as will be discussed in more detail below, multiple

studies have found that severe penalties rarely, if ever, have a deterrent effect. There are a few

possible explanations for this fact.

Not all crimes involve a rational decision

Criminal acts may be driven by many factors. Many crimes take place when the offender is

under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Others occur in the “heat of passion” when a person

experiences a strong emotion. It makes logical sense that a model assuming criminals engage in

a rational cost-benefit analysis before committing a crime would not accurately predict conduct

by people with an impaired ability to think rationally. But this does not explain why the severity

of punishment did not deter economic crimes like theft or burglary.

Subjective beliefs about severity do not match the likely sentence

On its face, severity of punishment appears to be an objective fact—a person commits an

offense and receives a known consequence. However, actual consequences may differ based on

multiple factors and a potential offender may not have accurate information about a likely

sanction.

The state can raise the maximum penalty for an offense, but that does not

necessarily change the expectations of someone who might be considering committing a crime.

If a person is weighing the benefits of committing a crime against the potential consequences of

that act, it is the potential offender’s actual belief about a likely sanction that matters.

The

majority of offenders who have been interviewed report that they did not know what potential

sentence they faced.

Not surprisingly, then, many reported that they did not consider the

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 6

potential sentence at all before acting.

Increasing penalties cannot have any effect if potential

offenders are not aware of the change.

Even if offenders know what potential penalties they face, their assessment of those penalties

may be different than what lawmakers intend. Interviews with offenders show that longer

sentences have diminishing returns. That is, a potential offender does not view a sentence that

has been doubled as being twice as severe. Sentences of five years were seen to be only twice

as severe as a one-year sentence, and sentences of ten years were seen as four times as severe

as a sentence of a single year.

Longer sentences continued that trend. A sentence of 20 years

was perceived as only six times harsher than a sentence of one year, and less than half again as

harsh as a ten-year sentence.

Offenders who serve long sentences are more likely to reoffend

Studies indicate that individuals punished more severely commit more crimes in the future.

review of 50 studies dating as far back as 1958 showed that inmates who served longer prison

sentences, those with an average of about 30 months, had a higher recidivism rate than those

who served sentences with an average length of 12.9 months.

While there is some evidence of

specific deterrence related to shorter sentences, there is no such finding for longer sentences.

That is, studies have shown that offenders who serve shorter sentences are less likely to

reoffend while those who serve longer sentences are not.

Research has not shown prison to be the best method of preventing offenders from reoffending.

Individuals serving any prison time reoffended at a higher rate than those who remain in the

community.

This is true both in the United States and in Finland.

Several theories exist to

explain this result. Some inmates may learn new criminal skills while incarcerated.

Others may

feel additional resentment to society, losing any positive connections to work, family, and

noncriminal friends.

In addition, while the studies attempt to control for the seriousness of an

offense, offenders sent to prison have often shown a propensity toward criminal activities by

establishing a longer criminal history or failing to succeed while supervised on the community.

Prison may be a factor in increasing the likelihood that an individual will reoffend, but

differences between individuals sent to prison and those placed under supervision and kept in

the community make it difficult to determine how significant a role imprisonment plays.

Changes in severity have little effect if offenders do not expect to caught

In addition, the severity of punishment only deters crime when the certainty of being caught

and punished is high enough.

In other words, severity of punishment, independent of the

certainty of that punishment, is not associated with lower rates of crime.

If an offender does

not expect to be caught, the severity of the punishment does not factor into any decisions.

Certainty

Certainty of punishment is generally considered to be more important than the severity of that

punishment.

Indeed, studies suggest that the deterrent effect of certainty is far stronger than

that of severity.

In certainty, subjective certainty is more important than objective certainty.

That is, an

individual’s belief about whether punishment is likely is more important than the fact that

punishment is, or is not, actually likely. That subjective belief can come from publicity, but more

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 7

often comes either from personal experience or anecdotal information from others in the

community.

The first perception that individuals form tends to be unreasonably high.

Individuals who commit offenses and successfully avoid punishment often increase their

offending behaviors based, in part, on the belief that avoiding arrest once suggests that

punishment remains unlikely.

Perception of risk can also be influenced by substance use, the

presence of peers, and other situations that influence a person’s emotional responses.

Like severity, increasing the certainty of punishment appears to produce diminishing returns.

There is evidence that the perceived probability of arrest must exceed 30 percent to have a

meaningful deterrent effect, and that the deterrent effect increases until the perceived

probability reaches about 70 percent.

But a probability above 70 percent offers only slightly

more deterrence than the 70 percent probability.

As Becker noted, there is a balance to be

found in certainty.

Raising the probability of arrest and conviction to 100 percent would

involve significant social costs, including paying for a vast police force and surrendering

individual privacy and liberty.

Celerity

Celerity, the speed with which a person receives a consequence for violating the law, has

received the least amount of attention in scholarly literature.

Studies suggest that the speed of

punishment may not have any deterrent effect.

At least one study suggests that individuals

prefer to get their punishment over as quickly as possible.

If correct, delayed punishment

could actually be perceived as a worse consequence than immediate punishment.

In summary, the economic model of deterrence suggests that most crimes are committed by

rational people who consider whether committing a crime is worth the risk of potential

punishment. The theory assumes more people would commit crimes if there was no risk of

punishment, and that increasing the risk will decrease crime. Risk could be increased primarily

by increasing the penalty a person might face or by increasing the likelihood that a person

would be punished. Both components must exist, but those that support the theory believe that

increasing the certainty of punishment is more effective than increasing the penalty for a

violation.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 8

Broad Policy Changes and Declining

National Crime Rates

Do national increases in police presence or increased penalties

explain the drop in crime since the 1990s?

“…it is very difficult to isolate and measure a deterrent effect precisely because a great many

things must happen before deterrence can occur.”

– Raymond Paternoster, criminologist

Deterrence theory is difficult to test because there can be many different causes for changes in the

crime rate. However, the increases in crime from the early 1960s until the early 1990s, and the

subsequent drop, provides an opportunity to assess whether policy changes enacted in the 1990s had a

deterrent effect. Crime rates in the United States rose dramatically from the early 1960s until about

1980.

They fell for a few years before spiking again in the early 1990s.

After that peak, crime rates

fell steadily for over a decade.

Indeed, with a few exceptions, crime rates have continued to fall.

Violent crime rates rose slightly in 2015 and again in 2016 while property crime rates continued to fall

during those years.

Sou

rce: FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports

Minnesota’s crime rate closely tracked the national averages. In 2016, crime in Minnesota reached its

lowest rate in 50 years.

While it fluctuated from year to year, the rate maintained a sustained peak

from 1975 to 1997 before beginning a steep decline.

While the drop in the crime rate is not disputed, there is no consensus about why the rate dropped. In

1994, the federal government passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

U.S. Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

Violent Crime (per 100,000) Property Crime (per 1,000,000)

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 9

included tougher sentencing laws, money for additional police officers, and an increase in firearm

restrictions.

Several studies have attempted to determine which, if any, of these policies contributed

to the reduction in crime, but the results are unclear. Many of the studies fail to evaluate the

interaction of different policy changes, making their conclusions unreliable.

The Number of Police Officers Increased

The number of police officers in the United States increased in the 1990s.

The New York Police

Department increased its uniformed strength from 25,909 in 1990 to 40,285 by 2000.

Minnesota had

7,365 sworn officers in 1992,

7,994 in 1994,

and 8,606 in 2000.

But there is no consensus about

what impact the increased police presence had. There is some support for the conclusion that areas

with increased police presence and aggressive policing techniques saw a reduction in crimes like robbery

and burglary.

But many of those studies have been criticized for failing to account for other factors,

including the evidence that crime actually increased in areas just outside the targeted neighborhoods.

In addition, that period of time saw changes in policing techniques, which may have had more of an

impact than simply increasing the number of officers. Significantly, the crime rates in Canada fell at

nearly the same rate as those in the United States while the number of police officers per capita fell.

Sources: FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports and Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey

While there is some general support for the theory that increasing the number of police officers reduces

crime, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that a shift in the policy focus to certainty is

efficient.

Incarceration Increased

In addition to increasing the number of police officers, policy changes in the 1990s also increased the

number of individuals sent to prison nationwide.

Incarceration in Minnesota followed a similar trend.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that Minnesota’s incarceration rate per 100,000 residents began

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Violent Crimes and Property Crimes per 100,000 People

1962 - 2012

Canada United States

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 10

to grow steadily in the mid-1980s and peaked in 2015, at a level more than four times what it was in

1978.

There is support for the conclusion that the increased rate of incarceration reduced crime, but

the cause of that reduction remains unclear.

The underlying assumptions come under attack for failing

to account for the difficulty in determining the proper cause and effect relationship between

incarceration and crime rates.

That is, if incarceration is claimed to affect the crime rate, then the

crime rate should also affect the rate of incarceration.

While the threat of a prison sentence may have

a deterrent effect, incarcerating people also has an incapacitating effect. A person placed in prison is

incapacitated and does not have the opportunity to commit a new offense, so a reduction in crime could

be explained by the larger number of people who were incapacitated at a particular time. However,

even the assumption that higher rates of incarceration result in lower crime can be challenged.

Incarceration rates did increase across the country in the 1990s, but, similar to the rates in Minnesota,

the national incarceration rate also increased in the 1980s.

However, instead of declining, the crime

rate doubled.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Comparisons with Canada again suggest that the situation is complicated. Admissions to Canadian

provincial, territorial, and federal prisons peaked in the early 1990s, but all admissions fell over the

following decade.

Incarceration rates in Canada actually declined while the country’s crime rate fell at

a rate nearly identical to the rate in the United States.

100

200

300

400

500

600

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

United States Incarceration Rate

for Sentenced Prisoners

1960 - 2016

Rate per 100,000

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 11

Sources: Adult Correction Statistics Canada and Bureau of Justice Statistics

While the changes in the incarceration rate in Canada were relatively minimal, they stand in stark

contrast to the changes in the United States.

Other Factors

In addition to changes in the criminal justice system, the 1990s saw other changes. The Cold War came

to an end, unemployment was low, the economy grew, and household income peaked in 1999. Cities

also gained population, a change in the trend of increased suburban population.

As a result, it is

difficult to identify any single factor as being most responsible for the reduction in the crime rate from

the peak in the early 1990s.

100

200

300

400

500

600

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Incarceration Rate per 100,000 People

1981 - 2011

Canada United States

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 12

Natural Experiments

A focus on specific crimes and locations sheds additional light on

the deterrent effect of various policies

“Fortunately, direct and strong evidence with respect to severity and certainty effects can be

found in targeted studies of particular policy changes.”

– Steven Durlauf, economist, and Daniel

Nagin, criminologist

Examining changes in penalties, incarceration rates, and the number of police officers at the national

level, or within Minnesota, shows some correlation between policy changes and crime rates, but does

not provide clarity on the specific effect of a particular change. However, other studies have taken a

narrower focus in an attempt to gather more specific information. This section reviews some of the

studies that help illuminate the deterrent effect of criminal justice policies.

Dismissal of the Denmark Police Resulted in an Increase in Crime

One early study used a unique situation in Denmark during World War II. With unrest and resistance

growing in the country, the occupying German army arrested the Danish police force late in 1944. Street

crimes, like robbery, rose sharply while the rate of other offenses that take place in less public areas did

not change dramatically.

The study suggests that police presence, which increases the likelihood of

punishment, deters some crime but does not deter offenses like domestic violence, which often take

place within a home.

Interviews with Burglars Highlight the Importance of Individual

Perception

A study of residential burglars in St. Louis focused on information from 105 criminals.

Of those 105

burglars, 21 were on probation, parole, or serving a suspended sentence. While 72 percent of the

subjects had been arrested for any offense, only 25 percent had been arrested and convicted of

burglary. The total lifetime burglaries of those who had never been arrested was twice that of those

who had been arrested for any offense. Those statistics provide support for the theory that there is a

connection between subjective belief of the certainty of being arrested and the likelihood that a person

will commit a crime. Those who had never been arrested likely believed that there was a very low

likelihood of being apprehended, and they committed burglary at twice the rate of those who had been

apprehended.

Studies of Three Strikes Laws Have Inconsistent Findings

California’s “three strikes” laws provided an opportunity to examine the effect of increased penalties on

repeat offenders. That law provided a dramatically increased penalty for a person’s third offense of

certain types of crime.

Proponents of the law touted the assumed deterrent effects that the law would

have and, in upholding the law, the Supreme Court cited deterrence as a valid justification for the

policy.

However, studies assessing the law are conflicted. While some studies suggest that individuals

with two strikes are less likely to reoffend, others found little, if any deterrent effect from the law.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 13

Administrative Sanctions Deter First-time Drinking and Driving

Offenders

Laws increasing penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol have received significant attention.

Individuals who drive while intoxicated face a variety of consequences including criminal sanctions like

fines or jail time, and administrative sanctions like the loss of a driver’s license. Studies suggest that

increased criminal penalties have little or no effect on recidivism.

Some states imposed mandatory jail sentences for drunk drivers, but individuals convicted under those

laws actually had higher rates of accidents or repeat offenses than those convicted before the

mandatory jail sentences went into effect.

Interviews with inmates suggested that individuals in prison

were actually more likely to drink and drive after their release.

In short, greater punishment in the

form of severe sentences is correlated with an increase in recidivism.

In Minnesota, the penalty for driving under the influence increases based primarily on the number of

prior offenses an individual has. Offenders with one offense, who faced the least significant

consequences for reoffending, committed repeat offenses at the lowest level while repeat offenders,

particularly those with five or more prior offenses, were the most likely to reoffend.

Several

jurisdictions, including Minnesota, increased penalties for first offenders by requiring an arrest for

someone with a first DWI or imposing mandatory jail sentences on those offenders. Some jurisdictions

found that a reduction in nighttime crashes that resulted in fatalities followed the increase in

penalties.

Of note, Arizona was an exception. There was no significant change in the number of

fatalities after the state increased penalties for first-time offenders.

In general, license suspensions

and revocations were found to have a greater deterrent effect.

The same was true for policies that

increased the certainty of detection, even in a study that found no effect from increased penalties.

100

summary, first-time offenders can be deterred from committing another DWI offense, but that

deterrence appears to be connected to an awareness of the likelihood of being caught and the specific

deterrent effect of short periods spent in jail and the loss of a driver’s license.

Increasing the Drinking Age Reduced Excessive Drinking by Teens

Researchers have also focused on issues related to drinking, particularly heavy drinking, by individuals

under age 21. Most states moved their minimum legal drinking age to 21 following federal legislation

encouraging that change, which passed in 1984.

101

Studies showed that the laws had a dramatic effect,

reducing alcohol consumption by those young adults and significantly reducing highway fatalities among

those under age 21.

102

However, underage drinking remains a significant public health issue, particularly

on college campuses. While colleges have attempted to improve their policies and enforcement, there

has not been a significant decline in binge drinking.

103

Indeed, there is some question as to whether the

minimum drinking age laws, and related “zero tolerance” policies for drinking and driving by underage

individuals actually caused the reduction in drinking and driving by young people. While the laws

correspond to a reduction in drinking and driving by those young people, studies do not necessarily

show that the laws caused the reduction.

104

Traffic Tickets Deter Some Drivers

A study of traffic tickets showed that men who received a citation for speeding were more likely to

receive subsequent speeding tickets, suggesting that there was no specific deterrent effect from traffic

tickets for those drivers.

105

There were noticeable demographic differences, though, showing that,

unlike men, women who received a ticket were less likely to be caught speeding again.

106

Increasing the

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 14

fine for a speeding ticket was not seen to reduce speeding in Norway, though increasing the fines for

failing to wear a seatbelt did correlate with an increase in the number of people who wore seatbelts.

107

Focused enforcement efforts that included both a publicity campaign and increase in ticketing resulted

in a reduction in traffic accidents.

108

Banning drivers from using cell phones without a hands-free device

resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of drivers using phones without those devices, but did

not result in a significant reduction in accidents.

109

Banning a specific behavior, targeting enforcement,

and increasing awareness, appear to change driving behaviors. Imposing traffic tickets, or increasing the

fine for a particular driving offense, also appear to deter at least some drivers.

Harsh Sentences After the London Riots May Have Contributed to

Crime Reduction

In 2011, there were significant riots that included damage to property and looting in London following a

police shooting.

110

Approximately 3,000 people were arrested and received sentences that were harsher

than normal.

111

For example, one man received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for stealing a

bottle of water and another was sentenced to ten months for stealing two left tennis shoes and leaving

them outside the store.

112

Before the riots, the crime rate in the areas where the riots took place was

significantly higher than the rate in other parts of London.

113

In the six months following the riots, the

overall crime rate in London decreased by about 3 percent compared to the pre-riot rate.

114

Rates in the

areas where rioting occurred dropped slightly more than the rate in other areas.

115

Crimes that

increased dramatically as part of the riots dropped the most significantly after the riots while there was

an increase in other crimes.

116

The authors of one study concluded that these statistics provide support

for the theory that the harsher sentences had a deterrent effect.

117

It is worth noting, though, that the crime rates in all of England and Wales had been declining steadily

since 2004.

118

Indeed, recorded crime data for London provided by the United Kingdom’s Office for

National Statistics shows that, similar to both the United States as a whole and the state of Minnesota,

the crime rate in England and Wales peaked in 1995 and has trended downward since.

119

Data focusing

only on London shows that the city’s total number of reported crime in the year ending March 31, 2011,

before the August 2011 riots, was 829,788.

120

Reported crimes in the year ending March 31, 2012, which

would include the riots, was 820,744.

121

Taking a slightly longer view, the total number of reported

crimes for the four-year period from March 31, 2006, to March 31, 2010, fell nearly 16 percent while the

total for the four-year period from March 31, 2011, to March 31, 2015, fell by 15 percent.

122

The

increased penalties for offenses during the riot may have had a deterrent effect within the

neighborhoods affected by the riots, but it is difficult to connect those sentences to the general trend of

reduced crime.

Transitions to Adult Court Do Not Change Behavior

Other studies have explored the transition from juvenile court to adult court. Juveniles can be put in

detention, but are not sent to prison unless they are tried as adults. If the threat of a prison sentence

has a deterrent effect, then a person who might commit a crime as a juvenile should be less likely to

commit the same offense as an adult. However, several studies found that there was no significant

change in offenders, even when they perceived that the threat of imprisonment had increased.

123

The

dramatic increase in potential punishment did not have a deterrent effect.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 15

Intensive Probation with Immediate Consequences Shows Some

Promise

Hawaii’s pilot project within its probation system provided an opportunity to examine the effect of

certainty and celerity. The program, known as Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE),

attempted to identify probation violations quickly and then provide an immediate consequence for the

violation.

124

The consequences involve jail time, but are limited to a few days. The program produced

excellent results in a short-term study.

125

A study that looked at the long-term effects still showed

positive results, but the difference between probationers in the HOPE program and those in traditional

probation was not as significant.

126

However, several jurisdictions received grants to replicate the

program. Early results in those jurisdictions show very little difference between participants in the new

program and those in traditional probation.

127

Increased Police Presence Reduces Some Crime

Several studies examine the increase or decrease of police presence in particular areas following specific

incidents. When there is a decrease in police presence in a certain area, crime tends to increase.

128

Conversely, when police increase their presence in a particular area, in response to changes in the threat

of terrorism, for example, crime in that area decreases.

129

Targeted Policing Has Proven Effective

Targeted policing, or hot-spot policing, has received significant attention. Studies of several

metropolitan areas show that a small number of neighborhoods or locations account for a very high

percentage of crime incidents.

130

Law enforcement agencies responded to this evidence by targeting

those areas with increased police presence. Following the increase in police presence, there was a

reduction in crime.

131

One study showed that doubling police presence produced a reduction in 6

percent to 13 percent of crime calls.

132

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 16

Policy Considerations

Governments strive to prevent crimes from taking place to protect people from physical harm, having

their belongings taken, and other dangerous behaviors. There are many paths to improve community

safety and stability. For example, changes in education and economic conditions can have a significant

effect on crime rates. In addition, the traditional law enforcement activities of detecting and punishing

crimes do deter potential offenders. Drawing from the extensive literature related to deterrence,

policymakers can assess which types of changes are most likely to have a deterrent effect, and which are

less likely to reduce crime.

Criminalizing Behavior Appears to Deter that Behavior

When new laws prohibit actions that were legal, studies suggest that many people change their

behavior. The most common examples of this can be found in changes in traffic laws. When laws began

requiring that people wear seatbelts and imposing a fine for failing to wear them, more people began to

wear seatbelts. In states that have banned the use of cell phones while driving, fewer people drive while

talking on their phones. Many people prefer to follow laws and, even if following the law is

inconvenient, they will modify their behavior to comply with the law.

Increasing Some Fines May Deter Behavior

Where a fine is relatively low, an increase in that fine may deter some additional individuals. Again, this

effect is seen most often in traffic violations. Localized increases, like increasing the fine for speeding in

a construction zone, and general increases, like increasing the fine for failing to wear a seatbelt, result in

fewer violations.

Increasing Certainty of Detection Often Deters Behavior

Individuals who believe they are likely to be caught are less likely to commit crimes. Drivers slow when

approaching a squad car parked on the side of a highway, and crimes like theft or robbery drop when

visible police presence in an area increases. However, some increased enforcement efforts result in an

increase in crime in surrounding areas.

Perception Is Generally More Important than Reality

When a person weighs the benefits of violating a law against the potential consequences, that

individual’s belief about those consequences is what matters. Increases in enforcement or penalties will

only deter individuals who are aware of those increases. Publicized increases in enforcement, like the

“Click It or Ticket” program and increased DWI patrols, have been shown to have a deterrent effect.

Increasing Significant Penalties Does Not Appear to Deter Crime

Multiple studies found that increases in significant penalties did not have a deterrent effect. Interviews

with offenders show that they discount sentence increases. A five-year sentence, for example, is seen

as twice as severe as a one-year sentence, not five times harsher. A 20-year sentence is seen as six times

more severe than a one-year sentence. There may be important policy reasons to increase penalties

that are already long, such as removing a particular individual from the community for a longer period of

time, but those changes are unlikely to dissuade others from committing the same offense.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 17

Short Sentences May Prevent Reoffending, Long Sentences May

Not

People respond to sanctions. Most people convicted of a DWI do not reoffend. Probation models, like

Hawaii’s HOPE model and drug courts, have shown promising results from a system that uses limited

consequences, such as a few days in jail, for violations. However, individuals who spend longer periods

of time in prison are more likely to reoffend than those that serve sentences of about a year.

Using Deterrence Theory to Develop Policy

Legislators seeking to discourage people from taking particular actions can use deterrence theory to

inform policy choices. For example, if the goal is to reduce an action that is currently legal, studies

suggest that the most effective policies would include criminalizing the behavior, establishing a

reasonable consequence, developing an awareness campaign, creating periods of targeted

enforcement, and publicizing the results of the enforcement campaign.

In contrast, if the policy seeks to reduce the prevalence of an offense that is currently illegal and subject

to a modest fine, legislation that increased the fine combined with publicity about that change can have

a deterrent effect.

When the underlying action is a serious crime that can be punished by a prison sentence, increasing the

potential maximum sentence for that crime appears to have little deterrent effect. Instead, research

suggests that policies that increase the certainty that an offender will be caught are more effective.

Legislators may consider increased police focus in certain areas, but can also look for ways to increase

the involvement of other public or private institutions. Examples include the policy that requires bars

and restaurants to stop serving alcohol to individuals who are obviously intoxicated or the requirement

that hotels train employees to recognize the signs of sex trafficking and to properly report suspected

trafficking.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 18

Questions to Ask When Assessing Policy

Legislators considering policy proposals can use deterrence theory to assess what, if any, deterrent

effect the legislation is likely to have. Relevant questions include:

 Is the action currently prohibited in any way?

 Is the general public aware of any prohibition?

 Are people who are likely to commit the offense aware of the consequences?

 Is the offense one that usually involves some amount of planning, or is it something that is more

commonly done in the heat of passion or as the result of an addiction or mental health

disorder?

 Does an existing penalty understate or exaggerate the seriousness of an offense to the extent

that a rational person would choose to commit one crime instead of another?

 Does the offense result in a relatively immediate consequence?

 Can a prohibition be enforced effectively so that a person committing an offense cannot avoid

detection?

 Does the policy increase the likelihood that an offender will be identified?

 Does the policy lend itself to targeted enforcement actions?

 Can the policy harness the expertise of community organizations, businesses, and other entities

other than law enforcement to increase awareness and influence public perception about a

particular action?

Research suggests that there are several paths to deterrence depending on the nature of the offense

and the population most likely to commit the offense. For most policies, the answer to some of these

questions will be “yes,” and the answer to others will be “no.” Determining the likelihood of a deterrent

effect requires more than tallying the number of “yes” or “no” answers, however. Legislators can use

questions like these to understand how a policy will be implemented and better predict how a particular

prohibition or enforcement is likely to influence particular actions in specific populations.

Conclusion

Governments seek to protect citizens in a variety of ways. Regulations like health inspections, license

requirements, and building codes exist to assure the general public that businesses, professionals, and

buildings meet a basic level of expertise or safety. Criminal laws, in part, exist to create some assurance

that people are unlikely to harm one another, or take property that belongs to someone else. When

people believe they will be caught and punished, they are less likely to commit crimes. That is, an

appropriate level of punishment coupled with a high likelihood of being caught is likely to deter some

potential criminals. Legislators can consider those two prongs, certainty and severity of punishment, in

crafting legislation to deter crime.

Deterrence is not the only reason for significant penalties. Criminal laws indicate a community’s morals

and values, restrain potentially violent offenders, and impose punishment for actions that society finds

reprehensible. There may be strong policy justifications for increasing penalties based on those

considerations. But, if the goal of a policy change is to deter crime, research suggests that an increase in

the likelihood of being caught has a greater deterrent effect than an increase in the potential penalty.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 19

Endnotes

John Jay, “Federalist No. 3,” The Federalist Papers (1787).

Sara B. Heller, Brian A. Jacob, and Jens Ludwig, “Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty, and Crime,” in Controlling

Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, eds. Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig, and Justin McCary (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2011).

Richard A. Van Dorn, Sarah L. Desmarais, John Petrila, Diane Haynes, and Jay P. Singh, “Effects of Outpatient

Treatment on Risk of Arrest of Adults with Serious Mental Illness and Associated Costs,” Psychiatric Services 64,

no. 9 (September 2013).

Denise C. Gottfredson, Brook W. Kearley, and Shawn D. Bushway, “Substance Use, Drug Treatment, and Crime:

An Examination of Intra-Individual Variation in a Drug Court Population,” Journal of Drug Issues 38, no. 2 (2008):

601-630.

Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (introduction to the Principles)

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), 179.

Kevin C. Kennedy, “A Critical Appraisal of Criminal Deterrence Theory,” Dickinson Law Review 88, no. 1 (1983-

1984); Kelli D. Tomlinson, “An Examination of Deterrence Theory: Where Do We Stand?” Federal Probation 80,

no. 3 (December 2016): 33-38.

Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, “An Essay on Crimes and Punishment, By the Marquis Beccarioa of Milan. With a

Commentary by M. de Voltaire. A New Edition Corrected,” (Albany: W.C. Little & Co., 1872).

Beccaria, 16.

Beccaria, 47.

Beccaria, 73, 94.

Bentham, 6.

Bentham, 7.

Steven Durlauf and Daniel Nagin, “Imprisonment and Crime: Can Both Be Reduced?” Criminology and Public

Policy 10, no. 10 (2011).

Gary S. Becker, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” Journal of Political Economy 78, no. 2 (1968):

169-217.

Becker.

Kevin C. Kennedy, “A Critical Appraisal of Criminal Deterrence Theory,” Dickinson Law Review 88, no. 1 (1983-

1984).

Raymond Paternoster, “How Much Do We Really Know About Criminal Deterrence,” Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology 100, no. 765 (2010).

George Antunes and A. Lee Hunt, “The Impact of Certainty and Severity of Punishment on Levels of Crime in

American States: An Extended Analysis,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64, no. 486 (1973).

Paternoster.

Kelli D. Tomlinson, “An Examination of Deterrence Theory: Where Do We Stand?” Federal Probation 80, no. 3

(December 2016): 33-38.

Antunes and Hunt.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 20

Valerie Wright, “Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment,” The Sentencing

Project, November 2010.

Wright.

Paternoster.

James Austin and Lauren-Brooke Eisen, “How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?” Brennan Center

for Justice at New York University School of Law (2016).

Austin and Eisen.

Paternoster.

Kennedy.

Wright.

Austin and Eisen.

Wright.

Reino Siren and Jukka Savolainen, “No Evidence of Specific Deterrence under Penal Moderation: Imprisonment

and Recidivism in Finland,” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 14, no. 2 (2013):

80-97.

Steven Durlauf and Daniel Nagin, “Imprisonment and Crime: Can Both Be Reduced?” Criminology and Public

Policy 10, no. 10 (2011).

Durlauf and Nagin.

Antunes and Hunt.

Paternoster.

Durlauf and Nagin.

Kennedy.

Sonja Schulz, “Individual Differences in the Deterrence Process: Which Individuals Learn (Most) from Their

Offending Experiences?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30, no. 2 (2014): 215-236.

Tomlinson.

Robert Apel, “Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence,” Journal of Quantitative

Criminology 29, no. 1, (2013): 67-101.

Paternoster.

Becker.

Tomlinson.

Paternoster.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 21

Paternoster.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States,” Table 1 (2016).

FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports; See also: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm and Nazgol

Ghandnoosh, “Federal Prisons at a Crossroads,” The Sentencing Project (2017) available at:

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/federal-prisons-crossroads/.

State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, “Uniform Crime Report,” (2010), Table 13; State of Minnesota

Department of Public Safety, “Uniform Crime Report” (2017), Table 4.4.3; see also, Andy Mannix and C.J. Sinner,

“Crime rate in Minnesota hits a 50-year low, new BCA data show,” Star Tribune (June 30, 2017).

DPS and Mannix and Sinner.

Paternoster.

Durlauf and Nagin.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, “National Sources of Law

Enforcement Data” (October 4, 2016); available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf.

Jarrett Murphy, “The NYPD has More Police Officers than 45 States,” City Limits.org (April 14, 2015); available at:

https://citylimits.org/2015/04/14/the-nypd-has-more-cops-than-45-states/.

Brian Reaves, “Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,” Bureau of Justice Statistics (1992).

Brian Reaves and Andrew Goldberg, “Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,” Bureau of Justice

Statistics (1996).

Brian Reaves and Matthew J. Hickman, “Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,” Bureau of Justice

Statistics (2000).

Paternoster.

Canada reports more property crimes than the United States while the United States reports more violent

crimes. Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Survey; see also:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm; FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports; see

also: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm.

Durlauf and Nagin.

Paternoster.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool – Prisoners, available at:

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nps.

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Durlauf and Nagin.

Paternoster.

Data collected from the Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin “Prisoners 1925 – 81” and annual bulletins “Prisoners

in 1982” through “Prisoners in 2016.”

Larry Motiuk, Colette Cousineau, and Justin Gileno, “The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community Statistical

Overview, April 2005,” Correctional Service Canada; available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/sr2005-

eng.shtml.

Motiuk, Cousineau, and Gileno.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 22

Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2010/2011; available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/

85-002-x/2012001/article/11715-eng.htm#a1; Bureau of Justice Statistics bulletin “Prisoners 1925 – 81” and

annual bulletins “Prisoners in 1982” through “Prisoners in 2011.” See also, Roger Boe, “Comparing Crime and

Imprisonment Trends in the United States, England, and Canada from 1981 to 2001,” Research Branch

Correctional Service of Canada (2004); available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/b29-eng.shtml.

Arthur Acolin, Richard Voith, and Susan Watcher, “City and Suburbs – Has There Been a Regime Change?” Penn

Institute for Urban Research White Paper (June 2016).

Durlauf and Nagin.

Richard Wright, Scott H. Decker, Allison K. Redfern, and Dietrick L. Smith, “A Snowball’s Chance in Hell: Doing

Fieldwork with Active Residential Burglars,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29, no. 2 (May 1992):

148-161.

See, Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 15-16 (2003).

Ewing v. California.

Durlauf and Nagin.

James L. Nichols and H. Laurence Ross, “The Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions in Dealing with Drinking Drivers,”

Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 6, no. 2, (April-June 1990): 33-60.

Nichols and Ross.

Jeff A. Bouffard, Nicole Niebuhr, and M. Lyn Exum, “Examining Specific Deterrence Effects on DWI Among

Serious Offenders,” Crime and Delinquency 63, no. 14 (2017).

Benjamin Hansen, “Punishment and Deterrence: Evidence from Drunk Driving,” National Bureau of Economic

Research Working Paper (June 2014).

Recidivism by DWI Offenders in Minnesota, Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives,

available at: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/dwirecd.aspx?src=4.

Nichols and Ross.

H. Laurence Ross, Richard McCleary, and Gary LaFree, “Can Mandatory Jail Laws Deter Drunk Driving – The

Arizona Case,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 81, no. 156 (1990-1991).

Ross, McCleary, and LaFree.

100

William N. Evans, Doreen Neville, and John D. Graham, “General Deterrence of Drunk Driving: Evaluation of

Recent American Policies,” Risk Analysis 11, no. 2 (1991).

101

Henry Wechsler and Toben F. Nelson, “Underage College Students’ Drinking Behavior, Access to Alcohol, and

the Influence of Deterrence Policies: Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study,”

Journal of American College Health 50, no. 5 (2002).

102

Wechsler and Nelson.

103

Wechsler and Nelson.

104

J.H. Hedlund, R.G. Ulmer, and D.F. Preusser, “Determine Why There Are Fewer Young Alcohol-Impaired

Drivers,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report No. DOT HS 809 348 (2001); available at:

https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/feweryoungdrivers/.

105

Saranath Lawpoolsri, Jingyi Li, and Alisa R. Braver, “Do Speeding Tickets Reduce the Likelihood of Receiving

Subsequent Speeding Tickets? A Longitudinal Study of Speeding Violators in Maryland,” Traffic Injury Prevention

8, no. 1, (April 2007): 26-34.

106

Lawpoolsri, Li, and Braver.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 23

107

Rune Elvik and Peter Christensen, “The Deterrent Effect of Increasing Fixed Penalties for Traffic Offences: The

Norwegian Experience,” Journal of Safety Research 38, no. 6, (2007): 689-695.

108

Dara N. Lee, “Do Traffic Tickets Reduce Motor Vehicle Accidents? Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” Journal

of Policy Analysis and Management 34, no. 1 (2014).

109

Anne T. McCartt, David G. Kidd, and Eric R. Teoh, “Driver Cellphone and Texting Bans in the United States,”

Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine 58 (March 2014): 99-114.

110

Ravi Somaiya, “London Sees Twin Perils Converging to Fuel Riot,” The New York Times, August 7, 2011.

111

Brian Bell, Laura Jaitman, and Stephen Machin, “Crime Deterrence: Evidence from the London 2011 Riots,” The

Economic Journal 124 (May 2014): 480-506.

112

Bell, Jaitman, and Machin.

113

Bell, Jaitman, and Machin.

114

Bell, Jaitman, and Machin.

115

Bell, Jaitman, and Machin.

116

Bell, Jaitman, and Machin.

117

Bell, Jaitman, and Machin.

118

Alan Travis, “Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show,” The Guardian, July 20, 2017.

119

Office for National Statistics, “Crime in England and Wales: Year ending December 2017,” Statistical Bulletin,

April 26, 2018.

120

Office for National Statistics, “Recorded Crime Data and Police force Areal Level (including pivot table)”;

available at:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/recordedcrimedataatpolicef

orcearealevelincludingpivottable.

121

Office for National Statistics, “Recorded Crime Data and Police force Areal Level (including pivot table)”;

available at:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/recordedcrimedataatpolicef

orcearealevelincludingpivottable.

122

For the year ending March 31, 2006, the total reported crimes in London was 992,557 while the total for the

year ending March 31, 2010, was 835,965. The total for the year ending March 31, 2011, was 829,788 and the

year ending March 31, 2015, had 705,881 total reported crimes. See, Office for National Statistics, “Recorded

Crime Data and Police force Areal Level (including pivot table)”; available at:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/recordedcrimedataatpolicef

orcearealevelincludingpivottable.

123

Durlauf and Nagin.

124

Sam Kornell, “Probation that Works: Swift and Certain Punishment Reduces Crime. Parolees Love It.” Slate, June

5, 2013; available at:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/hawaii_hope_probation_program_reduces

_crime_drug_use_and_time_in_prison.html.

125

Eric Martin, “A Hopeful Approach: Understanding the Implications for the HOPE Program,” Corrections Today

(September/October 2017).

126

Martin.

127

Martin.

128

Durlauf and Nagin.

129

Durlauf and Nagin.

Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy

Minnesota House Research Department Page 24

130

Durlauf and Nagin.

131

Durlauf and Nagin.

132

Durlauf and Nagin.