INTRODUCTION

Have you ever wondered why sentencing scenes in courtroom dramas are so intense? They highlight the legal system’s focus on deterrence, where judges weigh the crime’s impact on society and the message it sends. Phrases like “Let this be a lesson” emphasise the importance of deterring future offending. But why is there also an emphasis on the public nature of sentencing and tailoring punishment to send broader societal messages? Why does the severity of the punishment often seem tailored not just to the crime, but to the broader social message about how to act? This chapter explores classical deterrence theory, shedding light on these questions.

While much of criminology focuses on the psychological or sociological underpinnings of criminal behaviour, classical deterrence theory offers a different perspective by looking at how the legal and penal systems can influence potential offenders’ decision-making processes. Through understanding the principles of deterrence, we uncover fundamental strategies for preventing crime through punishment.

In this chapter, we explore the evolution of classical deterrence theory during the Enlightenment era, focusing on the contributions of thinkers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The objective of this chapter is to provide you with an overview of classical deterrence theory. We will explore the key concepts underpinning the theory, including the rational choice perspective, general and specific deterrence, and principles of punishment and proportionality. Additionally, we will examine the role these principles play in influencing penology and in shaping criminal justice policies. Finally, we will critique the theory’s notable shortcomings and consider developments and directions of the theory.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF CLASSICAL DETERRENCE THEORY

The origins of classical deterrence theory can be traced back to the 18th century, a period marked by an intellectual and cultural revolution known as the Age of Enlightenment. This era, characterised by a critique of then-dominant forms of authority and religious systems, set the stage for transformative shifts in criminological and philosophical thought. It advocated the ideals of individual free will and rational decision-making, challenging earlier beliefs that viewed human behaviour as predestined.

At the forefront of this revolution were influential figures like Cesare Beccaria^[1] and Jeremy Bentham^[2], whose contributions laid the groundwork for classical deterrence theory. Beccaria’s essay, On Crimes and Punishments (1764), pioneered a shift in the way of thinking about human behaviour and justice. It advocated for punishment to be rational, systematic and grounded in the principles of deterrence, proportionality and the protection of individual rights. This was different from prevailing notions of criminal justice responses that were characterised by arbitrary forms of punishment. Jeremy Bentham’s (1789) writings on utilitarianism and penal reform further advanced these ideas by emphasising the role of legislation in creating a rational social order where individuals, acting in rational self-interest, would be dissuaded from engaging in criminal behaviour due to the threat of punishment.

The intellectual legacy of figures like Beccaria and Bentham, alongside their contemporaries from the Enlightenment era, significantly shaped the development of modern criminal justice systems worldwide Their advocacy for legal and penal reforms emphasised crime prevention through the deterrent effect, rather than relying solely on punitive penalties, thereby reshaping approaches to crime and punishment in the centuries that followed.

Deterrence continued to dominate criminal justice philosophy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and remains a cornerstone of modern approaches to law enforcement and punishment today.

DESCRIPTION OF THEORY

The following section will explore the key principles of classical deterrence theory, clarifying its key concepts and the pivotal role these ideas play within the framework of criminal justice.

Rational Choice Theory

Grounded in Bentham’s (1789) rational choice perspective, classical deterrence theory claims that people are rational beings who seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This perspective offers insight into human behaviour within the context of classical deterrence. It suggests that potential offenders will calculate the benefits and consequences of an offence before deciding to engage in it (Bentham, 1789). Consider, for instance, an individual who is thinking about committing fraud online. They might consider the immediate financial gain and the anonymity the internet provides as benefits of offending. However, they must also consider the risks involved, such as the likelihood of being traced by cybercrime enforcement units, facing legal penalties and damage to their professional or personal reputation.

A rational choice perspective maintains that crime occurs when the perceived benefits of an offence outweigh its perceived consequences (Bentham, 1789). Building on this, classical deterrence theory suggests that crime prevention can be achieved by increasing the threat of punishment, effectively influencing the decision-making process of potential offenders.

Certainty, Celerity, and Severity of Punishment

Classical deterrence theory outlines three critical factors that influence the decision-making processes of potential offenders: certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment (Beccaria, 1764; Bentham, 1789).

Certainty of Punishment

Certainty of punishment refers to the likelihood of being caught and punished for a crime. When individuals believe there is a high chance of being caught, they are less inclined to partake in criminal activities. Certainty of punishment aims to deter individuals from offending by increasing the perceived likelihood of apprehension and prosecution (Bentham 1789).

To demonstrate this concept, imagine a scenario of a small town where graffiti has become a widespread issue, tarnishing public buildings and private properties. In response to community concerns, police boost patrols in hot spots and install visible surveillance cameras. This strategy aims to deter potential vandals by raising the likelihood of punishment. As the community becomes more vigilant and the police more present, the perception that graffiti will lead to immediate consequences grows stronger among would-be offenders.

Celerity (Swiftness) of Punishment

Celerity of punishment refers to the speed at which offenders are apprehended and penalised following an offence (Beccaria, 1764). The principle emphasises the importance of swift legal responses to crime. Delays in apprehension and punishment can significantly weaken the deterrent effect of punishment, making swiftly punishment crucial in preventing further offending (Blumstein et al.,1978; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001).

To illustrate this concept, think about the handling of traffic infractions in Australia. Once a speeding is detected offenders are promptly notified of their fines, usually within weeks of the violation. This rapid response, from detection to penalty, enhances the deterrent effect of punishment, aiming to decrease instances of speeding and thereby enhance overall road safety.

Severity of Punishment

Severity of punishment refers to the degree of consequence for offending. It serves as a deterrent by heightening the perceived risks associated with criminal behaviour (Gibbs, 1975). This strategy seeks to increase the severity of punishment to a level where the costs of committing a crime outweigh any potential benefits (Andenaes, 1974). In theory, the more severe the punishment for a crime, the stronger its deterrent effect on prospective offenders (Beccaria, 1764; Bentham, 1789).

Specific Deterrence versus General Deterrence

Classical deterrence theory distinguishes two main mechanisms through which punishment can deter crime: specific deterrence and general deterrence.

Specific deterrence is the concept of deterrence through first-hand punishment. It is achieved when the punishment of an individual for a crime dissuades them from offending in the future (Andenaes, 1968, 1974). General deterrence is the concept that witnessing the punishment of an individual or group second-hand can discourage a community or society from engaging in similar criminal acts (Andenaes, 1968; Nagin, 1978). General deterrence is achieved through publicly visible and consistent punishment, which serves to deter the broader community from offending by warning them of the consequences of unlawful behaviour (Nagin, 1978; Paternoster & Piquero, 1995). Principles of general and specific deterrence have long been the underlying foundation of criminal justice policies and practices.

To demonstrate this concept, consider a scenario where a community has been confronted with an increase in alcohol-fuelled violence in nightlife/entertainment precincts, sparking widespread concern among residents. To address this, new legislation was introduced that mandates more severe consequences for violent offences. These mandates include restrictions on the sale of alcohol and the introduction of ID scanners. Using linked data, scanners can detect problematic patrons on court, police, or venue-imposed banning orders and prevent them from entering a venue or an entertainment precinct. In this context, the severity of punishment not only lies in the denial of entry to a venue but also in the legal consequences for breaching a court order (e.g., fines or imprisonment) (Miller et al., 2023).

Principle of proportionality

Embedded within classical deterrence is the principle of proportionality^[3], which asserts that the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence (Beccaria, 1764). It aims to ensure that penalties are neither excessively harsh nor too lenient (Zimring & Hawkins, 1973), ensuring fairness and efficacy in criminal justice policies (von Hirsch, 1993). This not only preserves public trust in the legal system but also safeguards the fundamental morals and values of society (Andenaes, 1974; Tonry, 2011).

Classical deterrence theory suggests that the more certain, immediate, and severe the punishment, the stronger the deterrent effect (Beccaria, 1764). This emphasises the importance of striking a delicate balance in the criminal justice system, ensuring deterrence while upholding principles of fairness and proportionality.

Classical deterrence theory understands offending behaviour through a rational framework of offending, where the decisions to offend involve a calculation of risks and rewards. Punishment serves to deter the general community and repeat offenders. In principle, deterrence is best achieved when responses to crime are certain, swift, and severe yet proportionate responses to crime.

THEORY APPLICATION

Classical deterrence theory lays the foundation for our law, regulations, and approaches within the criminal justice system. It serves not only as a penological principle but also as a strategic guide for policy development, interventions, and preventive measures aimed at influencing individuals’ decision-making processes before they commit an act.

In Australia, deterrence is explicitly recognised as a guiding sentencing guideline. At the federal level, Section 16A(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires the Australian courts to consider factors like the nature and seriousness of the offence when determining a sentence. Similarly, in Victoria, Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) states that courts must consider the maximum penalty and the standard sentence for offences, ensuring alignment with the seriousness of the crime’s gravity. These sentencing guidelines exemplify the principle of proportionality by mandating that courts weigh the gravity of the offence against the severity of the punishment, ensuring that the sentence accurately reflects the seriousness of the crime committed.

Judges apply legislative guidelines to ensure that sentences fulfil both punitive and deterrent objectives, aligning with societal values and expectations of justice and fairness (Brown & Pratt, 2000). In their rulings, judges often articulate the deterrent function of a sentence, highlighting the importance of deterring not only the individual offender but also sending a clear message to the community about the consequences of criminal behaviour (Roberts & Stalans, 1997). This judicial emphasis reflects the dual objectives of specific deterrence, aimed at preventing reoffending by the individual, and general deterrence, intended to discourage others in society from committing similar criminal acts (Brown & Pratt, 2000).

Principles of Punishment in Australian Criminal Justice Policies and Strategies

The principles of certainty, severity, and celerity have been foundational to crafting criminal justice policies. These principles inform the design of legislative measures, shape judicial sentencing practices, and direct law enforcement strategies (Sarre & Prenzler, 2011).

Applications of Certainty of Punishment

The principle of certainty of punishment is operationalised through robust law enforcement and legal processes designed to ensure that offences are detected and prosecuted. Examples of initiatives that increase the certainty of punishment include increasing police presence (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995), the use of technology in law enforcement like CCTV and automatic license plate recognition systems (Ratcliffe et al., 2009), hot spot policing (Braga, 2005), randomised drug testing (Watling et al., 2010), direct communication by police with known potential offenders (Kennedy, 1997), and community policing (Skogan, 2006). These initiatives ensure that offences are detected and prosecuted and thereby increase the perceived risk of detection and punishment among potential criminals.

Applications of Severity of Punishment

The principle of severity of punishment is operationalised through stringent sentencing guidelines and judicial practices, ensuring that penalties are proportionate and significant enough to act as a deterrent. Legislative measures, such as minimum sentencing and mandatory sentencing laws, are examples of legislative measures that aim to increase the severity of punishment by limiting judicial discretion in sentencing for certain crimes. Public opinion and safety are driving factors in the implementation of severe mandatory sentencing policies, which they support in concept, but not in practice when it comes to cases sentenced under mandatory regimes (Roberts et al., 2003). Contrary to the principle of severity, deterrence research does not generally find support for the threat of mandatory sentencing practices (see Day et al., 2021) and the threat of longer sentences for assault rates (Menéndez & Weatherburn, 2016).

Applications of Celerity of Punishment

Celerity, or the swiftness with which punishment is applied, is another critical component of deterrence. The Australian criminal justice system strives to minimise delays in the adjudication and sentencing processes, recognising that the prompt application of punishment can reinforce its deterrent effect.

Criminal justice strategies for increasing celerity of punishment focus on improving the time it takes to detect, apprehend, and punish an offender. Initiatives to reduce the time in which offenders are processed through the criminal justice system include expediting cases for high-risk offenders (Turner & Petersilia, 1992), specialised courts (e.g., drug, mental health and family violence courts; Redlich & Summers, 2012), and the use of technology to improve case processing (Redlich & Summers, 2012). By reducing the time between the commission of a crime and the imposition of a penalty, these measures aim to strengthen the impact of deterrence on both the individual offender and the broader community.

The effectiveness of severe penalties in deterring crime has been increasingly questioned, with studies indicating that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, is more influential in preventing crime (Durlauf & Nagin, 2010; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001). This highlights the need for a re-evaluation of criminal justice policies to prioritise evidence-based strategies that address the root causes of crime without resorting to excessive punishment.

A Deterrence-Based Strategy to Reduce Driving Offences

This section will highlight deterrence research relating to each principle and policing strategies and enforcement for driving under the influence (‘DUI’) with a focus on drink driving. Australia’s approach to road safety enforcement is heavily influenced by key principles of deterrence theory, such as severe fines and a disqualified licence, to reduce benefits of engaging in the act.

The deterrence framework has been utilised by road policing scholars to determine if there is an impact on reducing illegal offending behaviour or perceptions of behaviour. Findings have been mixed but examined in the following contexts: drink driving (Freeman & Watson, 2006); drink and/or drug driving (Armstrong et al., 2018; Truelove et al., 2023); speeding (Truelove et al., 2017). Growing interest in deterrence and mobile phone use research includes phone use (Ehsani et al., 2014; McCartt et al., 2010, including social media application Snapchat while driving [Truelove et al., 2019a; Truelove, Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2021]), drivers’ uncertainty and perceptions on phone use (Kaviani et al., 2021; Truelove, Freeman et al., 2021), and use of mobile phones and the perception of risk information (Kaviani et al., 2022).

Research has also examined the effectiveness of policing enforcement tools and practices underpinned by deterrence theory to deter driving offences. These Australian studies assess the effectiveness of various road safety strategies that aim to detect and deter offending, including random breath tests (Homel, 1988), random drug testing (Watling et al., 2010), speed and red light cameras (Bates et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2015), legal and non-legal measures (Hassan et al., 2022), and mobile phone use cameras (Kaviani, et al., 2020a), and police patrol (Ogden et al., 2022). However, classical deterrence has not always been supported with scholars finding support for informal deterrence measures, such as internal loss (shame and guilt) or material loss to decrease offending (Hassan et al., 2022; see also Allen et al., 2017).

Certainty of Punishment

The objectives of certainty are to deter drink driving through the apprehension of the individual using police strategies, intervention, and campaigns. A random breath test (‘RBT’ or blood test; Queensland Police Service, 2024) is a key policing tool that increases certainty of punishment tool for drink driving by increasing the public’s perceptions of getting caught through various testing measures (Homel, 1988). RBTs are carried out during police duties (i.e., being stopped roadside), through coordinated roadside RBT) operations/blitz (i.e., visible mass testing roadblocks), and have expanded with mobile testing units (‘booze buses’; increase visibility and testing abilities) with coordinated intelligence efforts based on crash and offender hot spots (Queensland Police Service, cited in Davey & Freeman, 2011). All these measures provide police with the ability to test for drugs (random drug test; RDT; Queensland Government, 2021). Research is mixed on certainty of punishment and perceptions in predicting offending or future offending (see e.g., mixed: Owens & Boorman, 2011; high perceptual certainty: Freeman et al, 2016; Freeman et al., 2020), including young drivers (see e.g., lower perceptual certainty: Mills & Freeman, 2023). However, certainty of apprehension can be effective in reducing recidivism (Freeman & Watson, 2006) and reducing fatal crashes Homel (1994) speculates, particularly on holidays and Saturdays, after examining crash data following the introduction of RBTs.

Celerity of Punishment

In line with the principle of celerity, the impacts of punishment for drink driving are most effective when administered soon after the act (Homel, 1988). Drivers are charged and will receive an immediate licence suspension, which can vary in length of time depending on their range of drink driving offence (i.e., BAC range, failing to produce blood/breath sample, or dangerous DUI; Queensland Government, 2023a). Punishment is dependent on magistrates’ decision in court and therefore may be a lengthy process. This may have an impact on the deterrence on drink driving in the interim period subject to the charges. Swiftness is the least examined principle with findings suggesting that time is pivotal to deterrence in driving offenders (Freeman et al., 2016 Freeman et al., 2020; Yu & Wilford, 1995). Re-offending was more-likely if penalties were not administered within 6-months (Yu & Wilford, 1995), while drug driving offenders do not perceive sanctions to be swift but severe and certain (similar punishment procedure for drug driving; Davey et al., 2008).

Severity of Punishment

The legal consequences for DUI are based on the level of substance present. In Queensland, penalties include fines, license suspension and/or disqualification, impounding car (in certain circumstances or BAC), or imprisonment (Queensland Government, 2023a). The severity of penalties imposed for DUI offences depends on the severity of intoxication of an offender (i.e., BAC range), prior driving history, and whether a first or repeat offender. Deterrence measures to reduce recidivism include education courses following disqualification and alcohol ignition interlock devices, with mid-range offenders now eligible under Queensland’s reforms (Bailey, 2021). Australia’s punishments align with the principle of proportionality as they escalate in severity relative to the level of intoxication, with incarceration being a measure of last resort. In contrast, internationally the most severe punishment of imprisonment, 2-day mandatory jail for first-time drunk drivers, had no significant effect on reoffending (Martin et al., 1993).

Overall, the effects of severe punishment for DUI offences have varied. Research into penalty increases to reduce reoffending has yielded mixed findings (see Weatherburn & Moffatt, 2011; Watson et al., 2015). Repeat offenders who perceive sanctions to be severe can be deterred from continuing behaviour (Freeman et al., 2006). Interlock devices are also effective while active in reducing drink driving (Rahman, (2022). Underpinned by severity and certainty for high-risk drink driving offences, an interlock breath test device will not allow a driver to start the car if alcohol is detected and may increase their probationary period (Queensland Government, 2023b).

Non-legal measures of deterrence reinforce the law through advertisements and campaigns highlighting the harms, risks, and consequences aimed at the severity, certainty of punishment and informal sanctions. Road safety messaging can be educational, emotive, fear-based, and coping appraisal (Cismaru et al., 2009; Homel, 1988; Lewis et al., 2007; Phillips et al., 2011). Similarly, campaigns often draw on severity and informal sanctions, such as shame, physical pain, and material loss. Campaigns targeting driver’s self-efficacy can be more effective than threat messages (severity and vulnerability; see review by Cismaru et al., 2009).

To reap the expected outcomes of classical deterrence, ensuring awareness of the likelihood of being caught is high, punishment is swift and severe is pivotal. However, perceptions of punishment may not align with the principles, reducing the deterrent effect.

THEORY CRITICISMS

Despite its foundational status in criminology, classical deterrence theory has faced much criticism. This next section will discuss several key criticisms of classical deterrence theory.

Classical deterrence theory has faced criticism for its overly simplistic approach to understanding criminal behaviour. Its view of offenders as rational actors who make calculated decisions to offend fails to consider a broad range of influences on human behaviour. Human behaviour is complex and is influenced by a myriad of factors, including social, psychological, biological, and environmental factors (Felson & Messner, 1996; Wikström and Treiber, 2007). By overlooking these complexities, classical deterrence theory provides a limited understanding of why individuals engage in criminal activities.

Another critique arises due to inconsistent empirical support for the effectiveness of deterrence-based strategies across the deterrence literature. Overall, the perceived certainty of being caught and punished has been found to play a more important role in deterrence, the impact of severity and celerity is less clear and varies across different contexts (Chaflin & McCrary, 2017; Donohue, 2009; Nagin, 2013; Pratt et al., 2006; Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001). These findings highlight the need for criminal justice policies to prioritise increasing the likelihood of punishment over imposing harsher penalties.

Critics argue that classical deterrence framework is overly dependent on formal sanctions, neglecting other potential mechanisms of social control. Similarly, deterrence studies have been criticised for their reliance on legal sanctions to evaluate deterrent effects (Simpson et al., 2014). This narrow focus overlooks the broader spectrum of non-legal sanctions that may influence deterrence outcomes, indicating a need for more comprehensive investigations into diverse forms of social control within deterrence frameworks.

Finally, there are concerns about how deterrence theory is applied in criminal justice systems, especially regarding policies that increase the severity of punishment. This focus has prompted some countries to adopt “tough on crime” strategies, which entail imposing excessively harsh penalties for certain offences. This trend is evident in the “three-strikes” laws in Western Australia and mandatory minimum sentencing in the Northern Territory, which remove judicial discretion by requiring the enforcement of severe penalties for certain repeat offences^[4]. These policies raise significant ethical concerns regarding their impact on marginalised communities and the principles of fairness and justice within society (von Hirsch & Ashworth, 2005). Not only have these policies failed to deter crime effectively (Nagin, 2013), but they have also contributed to the issue of mass incarceration (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018; Tonry, 2014).

The criticisms against deterrence theory outlined in this section raise questions about its credibility as a key sentencing goal and framework underpinning criminal justice system policies (Frase, 1997).

FUTURE OF THE THEORY

Adapting and Refining Principles through Integrated Multidisciplinary Perspectives

In recent decades there has been increased scholarly effort to further reconceptualise the traditional deterrence doctrine to include new and relevant concepts. These adaptations integrate insights from various criminological perspectives, such as social learning theory, self-control theory, and economic theories (Stafford & Warr, 1993).

Social Learning Theory and Vicarious Deterrence

By drawing upon principles found in social learning theory, Stafford and Warr (1993) adapted the deterrence model to include vicarious deterrence alongside specific and general deterrence. Vicarious deterrence suggests that individuals can be deterred from committing crimes not only by their own experiences with punishment but also by observing the consequences faced by others for similar actions (Stafford & Warr, 1993). This challenges traditional views by highlighting the significance of learning from others’ outcomes in deciding whether to commit a crime. For more about social learning theory, check out Chapter 10.

Social Control Theory and Informal Sanctions

Another notable development of deterrence theory draws upon insights from social control theory to include informal sanctions as an additional cost considered in the decision-making process of potential offenders (Hirchi, 1969; Paternoster & Simpson, 1996). Informal sanctions involve the social and psychological consequences of not adhering to societal norms, such as shame, community disapproval (Sampson et al., 1997), or reputational damage (Coleman, 1988). This adaption expands the deterrence framework to encompass a broader range of deterrent factors beyond formal legal consequences. Scholars, such as Braithwaite (1985), have also explored the concept of reintegrative shaming (see Chapter 13) as a form of deterrence, emphasising the role of social disapproval and restoration of social bonds (see Chapter 10) in preventing recidivism and promoting compliance with legal norms.

To demonstrate real-world applications, reflect on how road safety campaigns utilise informal sanctions to discourage dangerous driving practices like driving under the influence and speeding. These campaigns effectively employ the social and emotional consequences of traffic violations on personal and community connections to foster compliance with road safety regulations (Allan et al., 2017; Homel, 1988). Education and awareness campaigns targeted at reducing traffic-related offences are examples of proactive informal sanctions designed to deter the community from engaging in unsafe and unlawful behaviours. To influence behaviour, campaigns target awareness of practices, punishment, and avoidance tactics used by drivers, and often communicate the potential consequences of offending. These campaigns focus not only on communicating the tangible risks associated with dangerous driving like injury or death but also depict informal costs like social shame associated with dangerous driving (see Owens & Boorman, 2011 pp. 10-11).

Economic Theories and Decision-Making Processes

Gary Becker’s (1968) economic approach to crime frames the decision-making process of engaging in criminal activities within the broader context of rational choice theory and economic analysis. This approach acknowledges a broader range of factors influencing criminal choices, beyond just the fear of punishment. It advocates for a strategic mix of legal penalties and socio-economic policy interventions aimed at reducing the attractiveness of criminal behaviour.

The advancements mentioned above broaden the scope of deterrence theory, deepening our understanding of the decision-making processes for criminal behaviour. These adaptations address multiple critiques of classical deterrence theory, leading to a resurgence of scholarly discussions and inquiry into its effectiveness as a framework for understanding and preventing crime.

Applications Beyond “Traditional Offences”

In recent years, deterrence theory has expanded its application beyond traditional crime, finding relevance in various domains and offences. The deterrence literature has expanded to include a broader range of non-traditional offences, such as environmental crime (Simpson et al., 2013), cybercrime (Bossler, 2019), terrorism (Kroenig & Pavel, 2012), and human rights violations (Kim & Sikkink, 2010). One notable area of advancement is the application of deterrence principles to corporate crime, where the focus shifts from individual offenders to organisations and their decision-making processes (Simpson et al., 2014).

These developments highlight the evolving nature of deterrence theory and its applicability across different contexts and enforcement actions, which may be underpinned by shame, vicarious punishment or injury, and therefore social learning. Harnessing a crime problem from a multi-disciplinary approach expands the boundaries of deterrence theory to better understand its effectiveness and abilities to leverage risk and benefits in altering the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, classical deterrence theory has served as a cornerstone in understanding and shaping criminal justice systems globally. It offers a framework that emphasises the rational choice of potential offenders, highlighting the significance of punishment in influencing decision-making processes to prevent crime.

Throughout this chapter, we explored the evolution and application of classical deterrence theory, delving into its key concepts such as rational choice, general and specific deterrence, and the principles of punishment severity, swiftness, and certainty. We examined how these principles inform criminal justice policies, sentencing practices, and law enforcement strategies, emphasising the balance between deterrence and fairness within legal systems.

Despite facing criticism for oversimplification, mixed empirical support for its effectiveness, and an overreliance on formal sanctions, recent interdisciplinary insights have helped refine the deterrence doctrine to make it relevant in addressing contemporary challenges and diverse forms of criminal behaviour.

Check Your Knowledge

REFERENCES

Allan, A., Poynton, S., & Paternoster, R. (2017). Informal sanctions and individual crime: A systematic review. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(1), 24-45. http://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816645308

Allen, S., Murphy, K., & Bates, L. (2017). What drives compliance? The effect of deterrence and shame emotions on young drivers’ compliance with road laws. Policing and society,

27(8), 884-898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1115502

Andenaes, J. (1968). Punishment and deterrence. University of Michigan Press.

Andenaes, J. (1974). The General Preventive Effects of Punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114, 949.

Apel, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). General deterrence: A review of recent evidence. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.). Crime and public policy (pp. 411-436). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Armstrong, K. A., Watling, C. N., & Davey, J. D. (2018). Deterrence of drug driving: The impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques. Transportation Research Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 54, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.01.014

Australian Law Reform Commission. (2018) Pathways to Justice-Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (ALRC Report 183).

Bailey, M. (2021, July 26). Queensland Government.

Bates, L., Anderson, L., Rodwell, D., & Blais, E. (2020). A qualitative study of young drivers and deterrence based road policing. Transportation research part F: Traffic Psychology and

Behaviour, 71, 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.04.003

Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Marc-Michel Rey.

Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217. doi.org/10.1086/259394

Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. T. Payne and Son.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Nagin, D. (1978). Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates (No. 2649). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Bossler, A. M. (2019). Perceived formal and informal sanctions on the willingness to commit cyber attacks against domestic and foreign targets. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(5), 599-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1692423

Braga, A. A. (2005). Hot spots policing and crime prevention: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 317-342. doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-1171-8

Brown, M., & Pratt, T. C. (2000). The use of imprisonment in England and Wales. In M. Tonry & R. S. Frase (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 197-244). Oxford University Press.

Chaflin, A., & McCrary, J. (2017). The deterrent effects of prison: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 125(5), 1306-1352. https://doi.org/10.1086/694965

Cismaru, M., Lavack, A. M., & Markewich, E. (2009). Social marketing campaigns aimed at preventing drunk driving: A review and recommendations. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330910960799

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Davey, J., Freeman, J., Palk, G., & Lavelle, A. (2008). The self-reported impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on drug driving behaviours in Queensland: A study of general motorists and convicted offenders. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference 2008: Safer Roads, Safer Speeds, Safer People, Safer Vehicles. (pp. 416-425). Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference.

Day, A., McLachlan, K., and Ross, S. The effectiveness of minimum non-parole period schemes for serious violent, sexual and drug offenders and evidence-based approaches to community protection, deterrence and rehabilitation (Summary Report, University of Melbourne, August 2021) (‘University of Melbourne Literature Review’).

Donohue, J. J. (2009). The impact of increased apprehension on crime rates: Evidence from New York City. Journal of Legal Studies, 38(1), 131-159. https://doi.org/10.1086/597173

Ehsani, J. P., Bingham, C. R., Ionides, E., & Childers, D. (2014). The impact of Michigan’s text messaging restriction on motor vehicle crashes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), S68–S74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.01.003

Felson, M., & Messner, S. F. (1996). To punish or to assist? That is the question. Law and Society Review, 30(2), 289-314. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053999

Frase, R. S. (1997). Sentencing reform in overcrowded times: A comparative perspective. Oxford University Press.

Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2006). An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to a group of recidivist drink drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(3), 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.11.001.

Freeman, J., Liossis, P., & David, N. (2006). Deterrence, defiance and deviance: An investigation into a group of recidivist drink drivers’ self-reported offending behaviours. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.39.1.1

Freeman, J., Parkes, A., Lewis, N., Davey, J. D., Armstrong, K. A., & Truelove, V. (2020). Past behaviours and future intentions: An examination of perceptual deterrence and alcohol consumption upon a range of drink driving events. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 137, 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105428

Freeman, J., Szogi, E., Truelove, V., & Vingilis, E. (2016). The law isn’t everything: The impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on motorists’ drink driving behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 59, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.10.001

Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 56(3), 439-453. JSTOR 43179579

Hassan, E. H., Bates, L., McLean, R., & Ready, J. (2022). Influencing driver offending behavior: using an integrated deterrence-based model. Crime & Delinquency, DOI: 00111287221130950.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Homel, R. (1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver: A study of general and specific deterrence. Springer Science & Business Media.

Homel, R. (1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver: a study of general and specific deterrence. Springer-Verlag.

Homel, R. (1994). Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26(2), 147-155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/00014575(94)90084-1

Kaviani, F., Benier, K., Robards, B., Young, K. L., & Koppel, S. (2021a). “Does that mean I can’t use my phone to pay when I’m in the Maccas drive thru?”: Younger drivers’ uncertainty and attitude toward smartphone law and punishment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 160, 106314.

Kaviani, F., Young, K. L., & Koppel, S. (2022a). Deterring illegal smartphone use while driving: Are perceptions of risk information associated with the impact of informal sanctions? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 168, 106611.

Kaviani, F., Young, K. L., Robards, B., & Koppel, S. (2020a). Understanding the deterrent impact formal and informal sanctions have on illegal smartphone use while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 145, 105706. https://doi:org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105706

Kennedy, D. M. (1997). Pulling levers: Chronic offenders, high-crime settings, and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, 31, 449.

Kim, H., & Sikkink, K. (2010). Explaining the deterrence effect of human rights prosecutions for transitional countries. International studies quarterly, 54(4), 939-963. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40931149

Kroenig, M., & Pavel, B. (2012). How to deter terrorism. The Washington Quarterly, 35(2), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2012.665339

Lewis, I., Watson, B., Tay, R., & White, K. M. (2007). The role of fear appeals in improving driver safety: A review of the effectiveness of fear-arousing (threat) appeals in road safety advertising. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100799

Martin, S. E., Annan, S., & Forst, B. (1993). The special deterrent effects of a jail sanction on first-time drunk drivers: A quasi-experimental study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 25(5), 561-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(93)90008-K

McCartt, A. T., Hellinga, L. A., Strouse, L. M., & Farmer, C. M. (2010). Long-Term Effects of Handheld Cell Phone Laws on Driver Handheld Cell Phone Use. Traffic Injury Prevention, 11(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580903515427

Menéndez, P., & Weatherburn, D. J. (2016). Does the threat of longer prison terms reduce the incidence of assault? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 389-404. http://doi:10.1177/0004865815575397

Miller, P., Farmer, C., Robertson, N., Curtis, A., Taylor, N., Coomber, K., … & Ferris, J. (2023). Mandatory networked id scanners in nightlife precincts across Queensland, Australia: Key stakeholder perspectives on policy and practice. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2674

Mills, L. & Freeman, J. (2023) The drink and drug driving behaviours of young Queensland drivers and attitudes toward apprehension. Traffic Injury Prevention, 24(7), 521-526. https://DOI:10.1080/15389588.2023.2215889

Nagin, D. S. (1978). General deterrence: A review of the empirical evidence. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 1, pp. 257-304). University of Chicago Press.

Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199-263. https://doi.org/10.1086/670819

Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39(4), 865-892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00943.x

Ogden, J., Brown, P. M., & George, A. M. (2022). Young drivers and smartphone use: The impact of legal and non-legal deterrents. Journal of safety research, 83, 329-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.09.007

Owens K, P., & Boorman, M. (2011) Evaluating the deterrent effect of random breath testing (RBT) and random drug testing (RDT)—The driver’s perspective. National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, ACT

Paternoster, R., & Piquero, A. R. (1995). Reconceptualizing deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 251-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427895032003001

Phillips, R. O., Ulleberg, P., & Vaa, T. (2011). Meta-analysis of the effect of road safety campaigns on accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 1204-1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.01.002

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367-395). Transaction Publishers.

Queensland Government. (2021, 1 Jan). Streetsmart: Drug driving.

Queensland Government. (2023a, 1 July). Being charged with drink driving.

Queensland Government. (2023b, 31 October). Alcohol ignition interlocks.

Queensland Police Service. (2003) Annual Report Queensland Government. 2002–2003. In D., & Freeman, J. E. (2011). Improving road safety through deterrence-based initiatives: A review of research. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, 11(1), 29. PMID: 21509205

Queensland Police Service. (2024, 7 February). Drink driving.

Rahman, S. (2022). The effectiveness of alcohol interlocks in reducing repeat drink driving and improving road safety.

Ratcliffe, J. H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E. R., & Wood, J. D. (2009). The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology, 47(3), 795-831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00157.x

Redlich, A. D., & Summers, A. (2012). The effect of court appointed representation on criminal case outcomes: Evidence from Cook County, Illinois. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(4), 792-817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01257.x

Roberts, J. V. (2003). Public opinion and mandatory sentencing: A review of international findings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(4), 483-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803253133

Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (1997). Consistency and disparities in punishment. Social Forces, 75(4), 1207-1230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580561

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918

Sarre, R., & Prenzler, T. (2011). Criminology: A sociological introduction. Routledge.

Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625-648. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500096221

Simpson, S. S., & Koper, C. S. (1992). Deterring corporate crime. Criminology, 30(3), 347-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01108.x

Simpson, S. S., Gibbs, C., Rorie, M., Slocum, L. A., Cohen, M. A., & Vandenbergh, M. (2013). An empirical assessment of corporate environmental crime-control strategies. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 231-278. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24615613

Simpson, S. S., Rorie, M., Alper, M., Schell‐Busey, N., Laufer, W. S., & Smith, N. C. (2014). Corporate crime deterrence: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-105. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.4

Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with the police. Policing and Society, 16(1), 99-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460500337469

Tonry, M. (2011). The social, psychological, and political causes of racial disparities in the American criminal justice system. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 273-312. https://doi.org/10.1086/655350

Tonry, M. (2014). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. Oxford University Press.

Truelove, V., Davey, B., & Watson-Brown, N. (2023). Examining the differences in perceived legal and non-legal factors between drink driving and drug driving. Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221114481

Truelove, v., Freeman, J., & Davey, J. (2019b). “You can’t be deterred by stuff you don’t know about”: Identifying factors that influence graduated driver licensing rule compliance. Safety Science, 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.09.007

Truelove, V., Freeman, J., Mills, L., Kaye, S. A., Watson, B., & Davey, J. (2021). Does awareness of penalties influence deterrence mechanisms? A study of young drivers’ awareness and perceptions of the punishment applying to illegal phone use while driving. Transportation research part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 78, 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.02.006

Truelove, V., Freeman, J., Szogi, E., Kaye, S., Davey, J., & Armstrong, K. (2017). Beyond the threat of legal sanctions: What deters speeding behaviours? Transportation research part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50, 128-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.08.008

Truelove, V., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Freeman, J., & Davey, J. (2021). Sanctions or crashes? A mixed-method study of factors influencing general and concealed mobile phone use while driving. Safety science, 135, 105119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105119

Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents: A community corrections alternative. Crime & Delinquency, 38(1), 49-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128792038001003

von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and sanctions. Oxford University Press.

von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles, New York: Oxford University Press.

Watling, C. N., Palk, G. R., Freeman, J. E., & Davey, J. D. (2010). Applying Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence theory to drug driving: Can it predict those likely to offend? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(2), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.09.007

Watson, B., Siskind, V., Fleiter, J. J., Watson, A., & Soole, D. (2015). Assessing specific deterrence effects of increased speeding penalties using four measures of recidivism. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 84, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.08.006

Weatherburn, D., Moffatt, S., 2011. The specific deterrent effect of higher fines on drink driving offenders. British Journal of Criminology. 51(5), 789–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr043

Wikström, P. O., & Treiber, K. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. European Journal of Criminology, 4(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370807074516

Yu, J., & Williford, W. R. (1995). Drunk-driving recidivism: predicting factors from arrest context and case disposition. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.1995.56.60

Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. University of Chicago Press