Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence

By R. Apel. 2013

293 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Faith in Trump, Moral Foundations, and Social Distancing Defiance during the Coronavirus Pandemic (2020, background): “Prior research has shown that the only deterrence perception that is consistently negatively related to offending is perceived certainty (Paternoster 2018; Paternoster and Bachman 2013)—the so-called certainty principle (Apel 2013:73).”
Examining Prison Effects on Recidivism: A Regression Discontinuity Approach (2017, unknown): “Rational choice theories, for example, posit that incarceration reduces offending by altering the balance of perceived costs and beneﬁts of criminal behavior (Beccaria, 1764/1963; Bentham, 1789/1988; see generally, Paternos-ter, 1987; Apel, 2013).”
Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century (2013, background): “First, for the reasons elaborated long ago by Beccaria and Bentham and most recently by Wikström et al. (2012) and Apel (2013), most of the general public has no intention of committing the types of crime surveyed in these studies.11 Thus, there is no reason for them to be aware of the sanction…”
The Deterrence Spectrum: Explaining Why Police Body-Worn Cameras ‘Work’ or ‘Backfire’ in Aggressive Police–Public Encounters (2018, background): “, 2012), Awareness to this risk was found to be highly malleable to proximal influences which include objective sanction risks (Apel, 2013)—and among these objective risks, presence”