Deterrence and individual differences among convicted offenders

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 59-74

  Pogarsky, Greg ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Deterrence; Intensive supervision; ISP; Self control

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846552543     PISSN: 07484518     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10940-006-9019-6     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allison PD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol Methods Res 28:186-208
2. Andenaes J (1974) Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press
3. Arneklev BJ, Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ Jr (1993) Low self-control and imprudent behavior. J Quant Criminol 9:225-247
4. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004) Probation and parole in the United States, 2003. U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
5. Clear TR, Braga AA (1995) Community corrections. In Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds), Crime, Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco, CA, pp 421-444
6. Cullen FT, Wright JP, Applegate BK (1995) Control in the community: the limits of reform? In Harland AT (eds), Choosing correctional options that work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 69-116
7. Decker S, Wright R, Logie R (1993) Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: a research note. Criminology 31:135-147
8. Etzioni A (1988) The moral dimension: toward new economics. The Free Press, New York, NY
9. Gibbs JP (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands
10. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, NY
11. Grasmick HG, Bryjak G (1980) The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Soc Forces 59:471-491
12. Hoetker G (2004) Confounded coefficients: extending recent advances in the accurate comparison of logit and probit coefficients across groups. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business, working paper
13. Klepper S, Nagin DS (1989) Certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology 27:721-746
14. Longshore D, Turner S, Stein JA (1996) Self-control in a criminal sample: an examination of construct validity. Criminology 34:209-228
15. Maruna S, Copes H (2004) What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? In Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research. University of Chicago Press, pp 221-320
16. Maxwell SR, Gray MK (2000) Deterrence: testing the effects of perceived sanction certainty on probation violations. Sociol Inq 70:117-136
17. Morgan KD (1993) Factors influencing probation outcome: a review of the literature. Fed Probat 57:23-30
18. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32:581-604
19. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc Rev 27:467-496
20. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1991) On the relationship of past to future participation in delinquency. Criminology 29:163-189
21. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2004) Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J Quant Criminol 20:295-317
22. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:404-430
23. Parsons T (1937) The structure of social action. The Free Press, New York
24. Paternoster R (1989) Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law Soc Rev 23:7-40
25. Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173-217
26. Paternoster R, Iovanni L (1986) The deterrent effect of perceived severity: a reexamination. Soc Forces 64:751-777
27. Pearson FS (2002) Deterring drug use with intensive probation in New Jersey, 1989-1990 [computer file]. ICPSR version. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Department of Sociology, Institute for Criminological research [producer], 1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002
28. Pearson FS (1988) Evaluation of New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime Delinq 34:437-448
29. Pearson FS, Harper AG (1990) Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's intensive super-vision program, Crime Delinq 36:75-86
30. Petersilia J (1990) When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Fed Probat 54:23-27
31. Petersilia J (1998) Community corrections: probation, parole and intermediate sanctions. Oxford University Press, New York
32. Petersilia J, Turner S (1993) Intensive probation and parole. Crim Justice 17:281-335
33. Pilliavin I, Thornton C, Gartner R, Matsueda R (1986) Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101-119
34. Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2002) Beyond Stafford and Warr's reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 39:153-186
35. Piquero AR, Rengert GF (1999) Studying deterrence with active residential Burglars. Justice Q 16(2):451-171
36. Piquero AR, Rosay AB (1998) The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.'s self-control scale: a comment on Longshore et al. Criminology 36:157-174
37. Piquero AR, Tibbetts S (1996) Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Q 13:481-510
38. Pogarsky G (2002) Identifying "deferrable" offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431-452
39. Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV (2005) Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: an investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology 43:307-353
40. Tittle CR, Rowe AR (1973) Moral appeal, sanction threat and deviance; an experimental test. Soc Probl 20: 488-98
41. Tittle CR, Ward DA, Grasmick HG (2004) Capacity for self-control and individuals' interest in exercising self-control. J Quant Criminol 20:143-172
42. Williams K, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptual research on general deterrence: a critical overview. Law Soc Rev 20: 545-572
43. Wood P, Grasmick H (1999) Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Justice Q 16:19-50
44. Wood P, May DC (2003) Racial differences in perceptions of the severity of sanctions: a comparison of prison with alternatives. Justice Q 20:605-632
45. Wright BRE, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Paternoster R (2004) Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally-prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. J Res Crime Delinq 41:180-213
46. Zimring FE, Hawkins GJ (1968) Deterrence and marginal groups. J Res Crime Delinq 2:110-114