Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "Szamota, Barbara" wg kryterium: Autor


Wyświetlanie 1-7 z 7
Tytuł:
Badania nad prewencją generalną: problemy metodologiczne
General Deterrence Research: Some Methodological Problems
Autorzy:
Szamota, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699167.pdf
Data publikacji:
1984
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
kara
efekty odstraszające
badania
prewencja generalna
punishment
deterrent effects
deterrence research
Opis:
      The results of empirical studies on general deterrence carried out so far are far from being unequivocal. Taking general deterrence research as a whole, it can be concluded only that in some situationa some individuals are deterred from some crimes by some punishments. Moreover, it is now obvious to most researchers that the problem is not whether punishment has deterrent effects but rather under what conditions and to what extent they occur. Thus, as the deterrent effects of the punishment threats are tentatively confirmed, further studies in this direction seem to be called for. So far the main achievement of the general deterrence studies has been overcoming some simplified approach to formulating problems (in research) and improvement in research methods rather than verification of hypotheses.         Therefore, instead of describing the results of these studies, this paper has been limited to methodological problems. It seems to the author that with the present-day knowledge on the deterrent effeets of punishment threats, the above approach will help to ensure continuation of empirical studies and will contribute to the gradual and cumulative enrichment of theoretical interpretations of the abovementioned problem.         Owing to the limited scope of this presentation only some selected problems have been dealt with. While carrying out this selection the author had to bear in mind that no such empirical studies had been carried out  this selection the author had to bear in mind that no such empirical studies had been carried out in poland so far and the results of studies made elsewhere had not become popular among Polish readers. This article has been confined to the penal law and the deterrent effects of criminal punishment threats rather than the punishment in general and it was mostly based on works published in the English language.       Apart from the Introduction, the article consists of the following parts: I. Notion of general deterrence, II. Deterrence vs. other general preventive effects of punishment, III. Types of general deterrence, IV. Theoretical foundations of general deterrence research, V. Conditions for effective general deterrence, and Summary.        I.  Notion of general deterrence       The author points to the differences in the definition of general deterrence, to the ambiguity and vagueness in the formulations found in the literature on this subject. She stresses the importance of a clear definition of the above notion for the purposes of empirical studies, which will, as a result, help to avoid misunderstanding in interpreting the research evidence. Since punishment, or strictly speaking, the threat of punishment, prevents people from committing an offence in a variety of ways, the deterrent being  only one of them, the researcher should clearly define what mechanisms he is going to study. For empirical studies a narrow definition of general deterrence, i.e., restriction to one mechanism only, seems to be more appropriate. So far, most studies have been devoted to the mechanism of deterrence.        II. Deterrence vs. other general preventive effects of punishment        At this point the author discusses also other mechanisms of the preventive effect of punishment threats, especially its moral and educational influence as well as its role in habit formation. Many  mechanisms of general preventive effect of punishment have not yet even been identified. In spite of the fact that it is advisable to restrict the subject of investigation to but one mechanism, it is difficult in practice to differentiate between the various mechanisms of general prevention. When interpreting the data it will probably be necessary to determine the impact of these other processes on the results of investigations. The study of the other general preventive effects of criminal sanctions brings about some specific problems such as those of a diffcrent time perspective, as they are of no direct character and require some longer period of time to bring down the crime rate. Although the present paper is confined to the effects of criminal sanctions, the author emphasizes the need for considering a wider perspective of reasons for compliance with the law.        III. Types of general deterrence.        When considering general deterrence from the terminological point of view one has to include its various types. The author discusses the following types of general deterrence encountered in literature: quantitative vs. qualitative; absolute vs. marginal; particularized vs. generalized or selective; total or complete vs. restrictive; replacing vs. non-replacing partial vs. Modifying or substituting or displacing. The distinctions suggested are often neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Still the general deterrence typology even in this form is of considerable methodological importance. Different types of evidence are relevant when an attempt is made to determine the different types of general deterrence. If the distinctions are not made then it may be concluded that a sanction had no deterrent effect at all simply because no evidence was collected for what is only one type of general deterrence.        IV. Theoretical foundations of general deterrencę research.        First the author presents the deterrence doctrine. It is because what lies at the foundation of general deterrence research,  i.e., a set of loosely connected and vague statements and assumptions, can at most be called a doctrine. Besides, the present shape of this doctrine does not differ much from that of the classical model of general deterrence formulated by C. Beccaria and J. Bentham. The drawbacks and ambiguities of the deterrence doctrine, as pointed out by the author, have come to bear on the results of studies aimed at the verification of the doctrine's propositions. What is necessary is to reformulate the deterrence doctrine into an empirical theory.        Then, directions are discussed in which the deterrence doctrine has been and still is developing.        First of all, the deterrence doctrine is being developed through a different conceptualization of the relationship between legal sanction and behaviour. It is now generally agreed that general deterrence cannot be conceptualized as a unitry bivariate relationship between punishment threats and crime. Instead, it is maintained that the relationship is moderated by a number  of conditions yet to be identified empirically. The number of variables to be considered have also become larger. What is specially worth noting is the fact that other, extralegal factors have been included in deterrence models.       Another important trend in the development of the deterrence doctrine is that of emphasizing its psychological character and including the so-called perceptual variables characterizing the way how sanction characteristics are perceived by potential  offenders.  The emphasis on perceptions of punishment developed  from an awareness that deterrence is a communicative proces. In order to deter, actual threats of legal punishment must be communicated to individuals. It will be most essential for the formulation of the general deterrence theory to determine the relationship between objective properties of legal sanctions.          V. Conditions for effective general deterrence.         The basic research problem consist in identifying the conditions for effective general deterrence. As for  determining these conditions, there are so far only few empirical data available. Besides, one can hardly see what the consistent theoretical assumptions could be which  will help to have some relevant factors included in the study, especially in the case of extralegal conditions. One should also be aware of the fact that the numer of possibly relevant factors is, practically speaking, unlimited and that many of these factors will influence behavior only when particural values of a large number of the others are present. But, characteristic of most „theoretical” writings is that the authors usually confine themselves to summing up a list of possible relevant factors, not dealing with possible interaction. The author discusses the concept of a „marginal group”.        Summary       The article ends with a short description of the methods used in the study on general deterrence. The author points out to limitations of the  methods and data that have most frequently been used in addressing the deterrence question. It is necessary to collect better data about perceptual processes.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1984, XI; 93-122
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Problematyka pasożytnictwa społecznego: aspekty prawne
Problems of ”social parasitism”: legal aspects
Autorzy:
Szamota, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699208.pdf
Data publikacji:
1985
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
problematyka
pasożytnictwo
społeczeństwo
aspekt prawny
kara
problems
social parasitism
legal aspects
penalty
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1985, XII; 101-112
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Stosowanie środków specjalnych – nadzoru ochronnego i ośrodka przystosowania społecznego – wobec recydywistów skazanych w warunkach art. 60 k.k.
Employment of special measures (protective supervision and social readaptation centre) towards recidivists coming under art. 60 of the Penal Code
Autorzy:
Rzeplińska, Irena
Szamota, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699046.pdf
Data publikacji:
1982
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
recydywista
środki specjalne
nadzór ochronny
przystosowanie społeczne
sąd penitencjarny
przestępczość
zwolnienie warunkowe
pozbawienie wolności
kara
recidivist
special measures
protective supervision
social adaptation
penitentiary court
criminality
parole
deprivation of liberty
penalty
Opis:
The Penal Code of 1969 introduced in Chapter VIII a complex of regulations defining the criminal liability tfor offences committed in the conditions of special recidivism. Two categories of special recidivism were introduced: basic recidivism (Art. 60 § 1 of the Penal Code) and multiple recidivism (Art. 60 § 2 of the Penal Code). To assume the first category, the following criteria are required: 1) commission of an intentional offence similar to the previous one, 2) execution of at least 6 months of imprisonment, 3) commission of a new offence within 5 years after discharge from prison. To impute the offender the commission of an offence coming under the second category of recidivism, the following conditions are necessary: 1) conviction for at least the fourth time, in this twice under the conditions of basic special recidivism, 2) repeated commision of an intentional offence to profit financially or of hooligan character, 3) total imprisonment of at least one year, 4) commission of a new offence within 5 years after the last imprisonment. For each of those two categories of recidivism, the principles of aggravated criminal liability are fixed by the Code, and they refer to less - serious - offences only. Towards persons coming under Art. 60 § 1 and 2, imprisonment within the raised limits is adjudicated. Towards such persons, absolute suppression of suspension of the execution of penalty was formulated. The strictness of these regulations is partly diminished by Art. 61 of the Penal Code, which created the possibility to depart from the aggravation of penalty as expressed in Art. 60, in "particularly justified cases, when even the lowest penalty inflicted on the basis of Art. 60 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, would be incommensurably severe". The Code fights special recidivism also by providing special measures against special recidivists coming under Art. 69 § 1 and 2: protective supervision (called "supervision" further on) and social readaptation centre (called "centre" further on). The first of them - supervision - is a non isolating measure, consisting in the control of behavior of the supervised person in the conditions of liberty. It is adjudicated for a period of 3 to 5 years (Art. 63 § 1 of the Penal Code). The second measure - centre - is of isolating character. The duration of stay in the centre is not appointed beforehand in the sentence: it is at least 2 years, at most 5 years long. After 2 years, the recidivist may be discharged by the execution of penalty court if there are good reasons to presume that he will not commit any offence after discharge (Art. 65 of the Penal Code). Special measures are executed after the sentence has been served.             The principles of application of the special measures differ as regards both categories of recidivists: those coming under Art. 60 § 1 of the Penal Code (called "common recidivists" further on) and those coming under Art. 60 § 2 (called further "multiple recidivists"). The organs authorized to adjudge these measures are the criminal and execution of penalty courts. Their decision as to adjudgement of them may be taken at various stages of legal and executive proceedings: in the sentence (criminal court), in the latter part of imprisonment (execution of penalty court), and during the supervision (execution of penalty court).             The principles of application of the special measures by the court which is to pass judgement in the case are stated in Art. 62 of the Penal Code. According to § 1, the application of supervision is optional towards the offenders coming under Art. 60 § 1. The court is here at liberty to decide as to the possible measures, as no premises to adjudge supervision are specified by the regulation. As to the recidivists coming under Art. 60 § 2, the adjudgement of one of the two special measures is obligatory, that of supervision as a rule. The adjudgement of the centre takes place only if the court recognizes supervision insufficient to prevent recidivism (Art. 62 § 2 of the Penal Code).             The second instance when decisions are taken as to the application of the special measures is the close of imprisonment of the recidivists. The rulings of the execution of penalty taken at this stage of the proceedings modify those taken previously - that is, in the sentence - as regards the application of the special measures.  In the case of common recidivists, these modifications may consist in adjudgement of supervision if it was not adjudicated in the sentence (Art. 91 of the Code of Execution of Penalties), or - if the recidivist is released on probation - in the specific conditional simulation of the supervision adjudicated in the sentence (Art. 98 § 1 of the Penal Code). If the release on probation is not cancelled by the court, the adjudgement of supervision loses effect (Art. 98 § 2 of the Penal Code). In the case of multiple recidivists, the modifications which may take place in the latter part of imprisonment as regards the adjudication of the special measures always consist in substitution of a strict measure by a milder one: the penitentiary court may replace the adjudgement of the centre with supervision (Art. 103 of the Code of Execution of Penalties) or release multiple recidivists on probation.             The third closing stage of proceedings when the decisions on application of special measures are taken is the execution of supervision. In this stage, the position of recidivists coming under Art. 60 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code is identical: they can both be sent to the centre in consequence of failure of the supervision (Art. 64 of the Penal Code). Thus the adjudgement of the centre in consequence of failure of supervision serves here as a measure to discipline the execution of supervision. The present study was based on the data from criminal records of the Criminal Register and the Central Files of Convicted and Temporarily Arrested Persons. The material from these records enables one to notice the differences, as regards the data they include, between the groups of recidivists distinguished in respect of the special measure adjudicated towards them, and thus, to define initially the criteria for application of these measures. As a conclusion, an attempt was made to define the general range of adjudgement of the special measures towards recidivists regardless of the stage of proceedings in which it took place.             The research was of cross-sectional character. The examined population consisted of recidivists (coming under Art. 60) from the entire country and selected to 3 random samples: the first sample included all recidivists whose sentences had become valid within the period from March 1 till April 30, 1979 (1181 persons), the second sample included all recidivists discharged from prison within the period from February 1 till March 31, 1979 (874 persons), and the third one - all recidivists whose supervision had been completed within the period from April 1 till May 31, 1979 (544 persons). There were the total of 2599 cases, from which 72 cases had been excluded because of the lack of complete data in the Criminal Register. The final populations of the separate samples were thus as follows: I - 1146 persons, II - 869 persons, III - 512 persons (the total of 2 527 persons).             The collected material was then analysed, that is, the groups of persons were compared, distinguished on the grounds of the type of the special measure adjudicated towards them, for instance the group of multiple recidivists towards whom supervision had been adjudicated was compared with the group sent to the centre. The above comparisons were made for each sample separately, and within the sample - separately as regards the common and multiple recidivists. The method of representing the results reflects , the analysis scheme: each sample has been represented in a separate part of the present paper. The study is summed un by an attempt to estimate the general range of adjudgement of the special measures towards recidivists. The results of the estimation indicate that the application of the special measures towards recidivists is of a very broad range. As many an approximately a half of the common recidivists had been subjected to supervision; failure occurred as regards 40 per cent of the supervised persons, which makes about 1/5 of all common recidivists, and these persons came under the regulation providing the adjudgement of the centre in consequence of the failure of supervision. In 40 per cent of the cases the cause of the unsuccessful termination of supervision was the non-compliance with orders and duties by the supervised person, and in 60 per cent - commission of a new offence.             As regards multiple recidivists, there were as few as 14 per cent of them towards whom no special measure whatever had been adjudicated, owing to adjudgements of the execution of penalty courts. Approximately 27 per cent of the multiple recidivists had been sent to the centre immediately from prison, while approximately 59 per cent had been subjected to supervision. In over a half of these cases supervision was unsuccessful, which makes about 1/3 of the multiple recidivists. The cause of the unsuccessful termination of supervision was in 2/3 of the cases commission of a new offence, and in 1/3 of the cases non-compliance with orders and duties.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1982, VIII-IX; 151-190
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Wpływ prawa karnego na przekonania moralne społeczeństwa w świetle wybranych badań empirycznych
Influence of Penal Law on Moral Beliefs of the Society in the Light of Selected Empirical Research
Autorzy:
Szamota-Saeki, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698862.pdf
Data publikacji:
2008
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
prawo karne
moralność społeczeństwa
badania empiryczne
przestępstwo
kara
penal law
morality of society
offence
punishment
empirical research
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 2008, XXIX-XXX; 203-214
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Pozytywna prewencja ogólna w nauce niemieckiej (wybrane koncepcje)
Positive General Prevention (Chosen Theories)
Autorzy:
Szamota-Saeki, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699300.pdf
Data publikacji:
2004
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
pozytywna prewencja
Niemcy
prawo karne
polityka karna
kara
positive general prevention
Germany
criminal law
penal policy
punishment
Opis:
 The idea of socio-educating function of punishment is not recent. It appeared in XVIIIth century. Its renewal of XXth century is explained by the disappointment of the deterrent and re-socialising effectiveness of criminal punishment. It is also a reaction towards the abolitionary postulates’ questioning the sense of existence of the criminal punishment. There are many versions of this theory. It is widely popular in Germany where it is calted ‘positive general prevention’ or the ‘integrating prevention’.         The term ‘positive general prevention’ was constructed in Germany in opposition to the traditional term ‘general prevention’ understood solely as a general deterrence. It is meant to stress the turn away from the so understood ‘general prevention’ and a promoting of the positive function of criminal punishment. This ‘positive’ or ‘integrating’ function of punishment is, in most simple terms, based on strengthening the morality, supporting the desired attitudes and ways of behaving, strengthening the trust in law, in shaping the law awareness, and also encouraging norms recognition. The purpose of the punishment is preserving and strengthening the normative integration of society. It is realised not by creating fear but by using persuasion, by teaching about necessity and usefulness of the criminal law norms and by obeying them for the social order. It is also important to bring about a custom of law obedience.         The popularity of the positive general prevention is explained differently in the German studies. Most often, it is pointed out that, on the one hand, a return towards the absolutist theories is commonly rejected there, and on the other hand, that there is a popular disappointment with the efficiency of prevention and re-socialisation. The positive general prevention an opportunity for keeping a preventive character of theory of punishment with a simultaneous introduction of a retributive element in form of guilt rule. It thus creates a combination of rationality of prevention theories with a guaranteed character of the absolutist theories. It also has an advantage over the mixed theories of punishment as it is directed at a single goal.         Despite of a significant differentiation of the positive general prevention theories, it is relatively easy to define some of its characteristics: the addressee of an execution of the criminal law and punishment is society and not an individual person, where it is mostly about the influence on those members of society who do obey the law. the positive general prevention aims at long term, indirect activity and not at an immediate, short term effect on society. the persuasive nature of the criminal law is stressed, its ability to persuade, as well as the symbolic, expressive meaning of punishment as means of communicating. The content of that message in German conception is, in general, that criminal law norm is still valid. It exceptionally evokes to the moral condemnation of a deed as a subject of that message. the representatives of the theory of positive general prevention educe the purpose of the punishment from the entire penal law system. Penal law and the penalty itself come in those ideas on the very same grounds. Therefore it is not a theory of punishment but a theory of the penal law. these theories agree that the positive, integrating effect can be brought about only by a just punishment. a very typical feature of the German ideas is using the term of guilt in reference to functionality. It makes them vulnerable to a reproach that, in fact, they are veiled absolutist theories.        I analyse five ideas of the positive general prevention in this article. It was my aim to select those ideas which could indicate its diversity. Mayer's theory contributed to the rebirth of the socio-educational theory of punishment function in German studies. It belongs to the movement of the expressive punishment theories. According to Mayer penalty has an educational aspect for the society by strengthening or creating morality of the community.        Integrating prevention, as understood by H. Muller-Dietz, is an activity of punishment which is based on creating and strengthening the ways that law is perceived by the citizens. The integrating function is realised by the regulatory and court systems of justice.       The most popular in Germany is the theory of G. Jakobs. It clearly refers to the theory of systems by Niklas Luhmann. Jakobs stresses that punishment expresses a protest against breaking a norm paid by the offender. It shows that the norm broken with a deed is still valid and that it is determinant as an orientation example for social interactions.       A very strong feature of W. Hasserman’s idea is the emphasis of how the penal law system influences the entirety of social control processes. Streng refers to the psychoanalysis and psychology of the punishing society, in order to explain the general preventative activity of punishment. He mentions three unconscious, emotional sources of punishment.       In the conclusion I discuss the significance of the presented theories for the studies of criminal law and the practices of administration of criminal justice.  
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 2004, XXVII; 43-66
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Społeczno-wychowawcza funkcja kary a koncepcje natury ludzkiej (na przykładzie koncepcji Michaela Baurmanna)
Socio-educational function of a punishment and conceptions of human nature (on the example of Michael Baurmann conception)
Autorzy:
Szamota-Saeki, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/698492.pdf
Data publikacji:
2009
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
prewencja generalna
funkcje kary
criminological theory
Opis:
In the present debate on theory of positive general prevention more emphasis is put on empirical than normative issues. It is understandable since the number of empirical studies, proving the theses of moral-educational role of the punishment, carried out so far is low and the results are inconclusive and preliminary. This justifies the question if these theories have any grounds in social reality. It is even suggested that the theories are lawyers’ ideas and their greatest asset is the difficulty of obtaining an empirical proof. Because of this, one may refer to them without a fear that the claims will be rejected in empirical research (disregarding purely normative theories, that is). What is a characteristic feature of various version of positive general prevention is that it is meant to be achieved not by fear of punishment but other mechanisms which do not emphasise the element of constraint and real affliction of state-imposed punishment. It is most of all about emphasising persuasive, educational, socialising and symbolic character of criminal law impact as well as about creating a habit. In some theories, state-imposed punishment plays a role of an argument in shaping rationally motivated convictions which should favour voluntary obedience of criminal law norms. Since state-imposed punishment becomes a motivating measure which can be combined with autonomy and dignity of an individual, ethical reservations concerning it use are eliminated to a great extent. Because of this masking of the real character of stateimposed punishment, this is the point where the risk of its broader use appears. Therefore the primary task is to restate the theory of positive prevention into a general empirical theory whose claims can be verified. Previous studies have shown that these theories are available for empirical research, which belies the widespread belief that they can not be subjected to empirical verification. There is no doubt that the rearrangement of the thesis of general positive prevention and making terminology more precise would help in building an empirical theory. The biggest challenge is to develop a theoretical model of human behaviour which could support the theory of general positive prevention. The need to provide such a theoretical model of human behaviour was shown by German sociologist, Michael Baurmann, and it was him who undertook this task. Importantly, not only has he developed such a model, but he applied it directly to reformulate selected varieties of positive general prevention in an empirical theory. On an example of two models designed for different versions of positive general prevention, Baurmann showed not only how to organize the varieties of moral and educational theory of punishment, but also how to describe them in the language of empirical research. General prevention understood as general deterrence is based on a model of rational choice in the sense of homo economicus.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 2009, XXXI; 73-100
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Odstraszające oddziaływanie kary na sprawcę przestępstwa w świetle badań empirycznych
Deterrent Effect of Punishment on the Offender (a Review of Empirical Research)
Autorzy:
Szamota-Saeki, Barbara
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/699090.pdf
Data publikacji:
1995
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN
Tematy:
kara
sprawca przestępstwa
badania empiryczne
punishment
criminal offender
empirical research
Opis:
The number of studies on specific deterrence is not large. Some data on this subject can be found in other studies aimed e.g. at evalution of effectiveness of diffrent penal measures, or analysis of criminal careers. One of the reasons of this lack of interest in specific deterrence is a belief,  rather common today and particularly marked in the 1960s, that punishment not only fails to deter the convicted person from futher offenses but – quite the contrary - increases the probability of his futher criminal carrer.  Another reason is probably the great difficulty in distinguishing for research purposes of the impact of specific deterrence from the other effects of punishment. Unfortunately, a statement made by J. Gibbs over twenty years ago still remains valid: there is no theory of specific deterrence, and the hypotheses concerning specific deterrence are vague and difficult to verify empirically. During the last twenty  years, there was a progress in the methodology of research into specific deterrence. New success criteria were introduced into the assessment of deterrent effect of punishment, and the method of random field experiment was used. Researchers started to compare the effect of punishment with the effects of escaning punishment, instead of limiting themselves to comparisons of relative effectiveness of some penalties as opposed to some other ones. The progress was less marked in the formation of the theory of specific  deterrence. It consists in attempts, on the one hand, at a new conceptualization of the problem of deterrence, and on the other hand, at integrating the deterrence hypothesis with other theoretical approaches. The paper consists of seven parts. The Introduction (I) contains analysis of the notion of specific deterrence, the criteria to distinguish between specific and general deterrence, tvpes of deterrence. Also discussed have the recent attempts at a new conceptualization of tne problem of deterrence through inclusion into that notion of not only the “direct costs of legal sanctions” but also “indirect costs”, or through the use of another criterion to distinguish between specific and general deterrence. Chapter II contains a brief discussion of early studies on specific deterrence; the findings have been discussed and numerous methodological flaws pointed out. The conclusion from those studies (that severe penalties involve a higher recidivism rate than lenient penalties) was generally seen as a prove that punishment has no specific deterrent effect on the futher behaviour of convicted persons. This conclusion was unjustified, though. And that for several reasons. The discussed studies often failed to distinguish between the mechanism of deterrence and the other effects of punishment. They also failed to solve the problem of selection bias in sentencing where specific types of penalties are imposed on specific categories of offenders; the difference between such groups of convicted persons is that even before the imposition of penalty, the probability of their relapse into crime was different. The studies examined but a marginal effectiveness of some  penalties as compared to some other ones. What they overlooked, instead, was that the growth in recidivism rate cannot be estimated which would have taken place were no criminal penalties at all imposed on offenders. Chapter III discusses the findings of studies which tested two opposing hypotheses; i.e. that punishment either deters offenders (deterrence hypothesis) or amplifies offendling (amplification hypothesis). Both the conception of deterrence and that of labeling involve too one-sided and simplified an approach to the impact of punishment on the further conduct of offenders as they ignore the possibility of effects  other than the anticipated ones. This was reflected in these studies in which the researches posed instead of posing questions in the categories of “whether” (does punishment deter? does pinishment amplify affending?), instead of trying to define the conditions of emergence of each of those two effects. Analyzed in few studies only were mediating psycho-social processes between punisment and the punished pefsons’ further conduct. The findings of different studies are often inconsistent. Some seem to confirm the amplification hypothesis although researchers sometimes stress that this effect is not stable Other findings point  to the effect of deterrence. Still other studies showed that: punishment seems do not influence a pefson’s further criminal career. Finally, some of the latest findings also indicate the possibility of amplifijing offending under some conditions and of deterring effect on offending - under some other circumstances. Chapter IV discusses the implications of the criminal careers approach for methodology of studies on specific deterrence. What is particularly worthy of attention here is: 1) departure from the use of a sole success criterion in the evaluation of deterrent effect of punishment, and an attempt at grasping the impact of punishment on different dimensions of criminality such as the length of criminal career or fraquency of offenses; 2) investigation of the impact of punishment at different stages of a person’s criminal career. The success criterion  where success means a person’s abstention from further offenses is replaced with the before and after comparison criterion where the intensity of a person’s criminal career before and after punishment is compared; this replacement is of a great importance in studies of effectiveness of penal  measures imposed on chronic offnders. As suggested by the findings, certain penalties may in cessation of delinquency at the initial stage of the criminal career (on the occasion of the first and possibly also the second contact with the police). At further stages of that career, a decrease in the intensity of delinquency of the persons convicted is possible. Chapter V discusses attempts at including the hypothesis of  specific deterrence into the economic model of delinquent behawior, and studies carried out by economists. According to some economists, specific deterrence can be included into the theory of rational choice provided it is treated as a special case of general deterrence. In tlis approach, the experience of a sanction becomes a factor influencing the anticipated sanctions. Chapter VI is devoted to discussion of the results of a series of rondom field experiments conducted in selected cities of the United States. The purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of arrest as compared to other reactions to violence against a spouse (nearly all victims in the study were women). The obtained results were not uniform: in some experiments, deterrent effect of arrest was found out, while the rest showed an amplifying effect of arrest on the arrested person’s  further violence against his spouse. The authors explain this divergence of results with a different impact of arrest on different types of persons. Thus the results suggest that arrest has  a deterrent effect on permanently employed suspects; instead, suspects without a regular job tended to use violence more often after the  arrest incident. The last Chapter (VII) recapitulates the findings. They show that it was a premature decision to reject the hyphothesis of specific deterrence. Punishment has a different impact on different persons: in some situations it results in amplication of offending; in some other ones, it deters a person from further offenses; and  in still other situations it seems not to have any effect at all on furter offending. The findings point to a great importance in this respect of the first contacts with the law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the differentiated effect of punishment seems to depend on the offender’s age, sex, and attitude towards risk, and also on his permanent employment. It should be stressed that many studies use a broader definition of punishment, not limited to the penalties  imposed by court. Some researchers treat even a person’s contact with the police as punishment; others believe that this function is performed by arrest. These different working definitions of punishment make it difficult to interpret the findings that relate to absolute deterrence, that is assessment of the effects of imposing punishment as compared to those of escaping punishment. Nearly all studies dealt with recidivism and, first and foremost, the effectiveness of punishment in reducing a person’s further delinquency. To a slight extent only did they try to define the meaning of punishment for those punished, their subjective estimations of probability and severity of punishment. For this reason, interpretation of the findings in the categories of stating whether punishment has a deterrent effect is not always justified.
Źródło:
Archiwum Kryminologii; 1995, XXI; 7-39
0066-6890
2719-4280
Pojawia się w:
Archiwum Kryminologii
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-7 z 7

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies