No description available.

This thesis primary aim is to examine specific deterrence; the fear of punishment experienced by individuals who have committed crimes and subsequently received a punishment. Specific deterrence is assumed to deter criminals from reoffending. The secondary aim of this thesis is to examine the perceptions of increased punishments as a measure to prevent crime, as deterrence theory predicts that increased punishment correlates to decreased criminality. The Swedish government has continually proposed and implemented increased punishments. As such, the validity of specific deterrence and the effectiveness of increased punishments requires examination in a Swedish context. Perceptions and experiences of specific deterrence, and perceptions of the deterring effect of increased punishments, was examined in 12 semi-structured interviews with people who have committed a crime and received subsequent punishment. The material was analysed using thematic analysis, and the results found that the participants did not experience deterrence, as drug addiction, fear of consequences from other criminals, and perceptions of apprehension and severity of punishment inhibited, or eliminated, specific deterrence. Increased punishments were not thought to have affected past criminal actions, but opinions on increased punishments to combat current criminality were both positive and negative. By applying General Strain theory, the study found that the presence of a stronger experience of strain eliminated or diminished specific deterrence.

Stafford and Warr (1993) reconceptualized general and specific deterrence into a single theory in which individuals' propensities to engage in criminal behavior are based on some combination of personal experiences with being punished and avoiding punishment and vicarious (or indirect) experiences with being punished and avoiding punishment. The researchers make a substantial contribution to the deterrence literature by accounting for the effect of punishment avoidance when assessing deterrence theory. Despite the theoretical appeal of this restatement, few studies have tested its empirical merit. The current study tests the applicability of Stafford and Warr's model but also addresses several key limitations that still exist in the deterrence literature. The present study was the first of its kind to directly test Stafford and Warr's (1993) model, blending specific and general deterrence, on an offending population. The majority of perceptual deterrence research examines largely pro-social groups. Evidence suggests that offenders may have unique decision-making processes and may be very different from those typically studied in deterrence research. Identifying the relevant deterrents among non-conventional or offending populations has significant policy implications. Additionally, in order to understand the decision-making process of criminals, this study incorporated alternative sanction forms from a rational choice perspective into the deterrence framework. This is a particularly salient point because non-legal costs may be more influential in criminal decision-making than formal sanctions. By examining the deterrent effects of several other factors (besides the traditional variables studied in deterrence models) among a non-conventional population, findings may suggest methods for designing more effective punishments. Therefore, the present study conducted survey research of high-criminality among an adult sample. This dissertation recruited 326 work release inmates from Orange County, Florida, and asked them to complete a written questionnaire. Results from the bivariate analyses revealed some support for the deterrence doctrine and the rational choice perspective. However, more rigorous tests of these predictions revealed no support for deterrence theory. Even though this study concluded that deterrence alone does not adequately predict future offending, the idea of choice was upheld. The results from this dissertation and from several other studies suggest the need for further analysis of the effect of extralegal sanctions on future criminal activity, especially among non-conventional populations. The current study offers suggestions for effective crime control policies and directions on how future research can clarify the inconsistencies between the theoretical predictions of deterrence theory and empirical reality.

我國緩起訴制度於2002 年制定，立法者於立法時已明文緩起訴係立基於訴訟經濟之目的，以及預防被告再犯之特別預防之刑事政策為出發。而緩起訴制度自2002 年施行至今約莫13 年，是否確能落實當年立法者所預期達成之目的，有效達成被告再犯預防之特別預防目的？或反而因為附條件緩起訴存在太過便利，附條件緩起訴之相關指示與負擔選擇多元且包羅萬象，而忽視制度本身原應該追求的目的？對於制度之目的產生問題後，因我國立法時參考的外國法制為日本的起訴猶豫制度，在日本法上起訴猶豫制度之運用是否也有類似的問題？而因緩起訴制度為一種刑事政策之轉向處分，美國法制上亦有性質類似的審前轉向原則，是否有得以參考的地方？所謂「他山之石，可以攻錯」，若想要達成緩起訴預防再犯之功能，以外國法制作為借鏡下，有無可提供我國法制得以參考的地方？在這樣的思考脈絡下，最後提出本文的一點想法以及參考。 本文希望藉由檢討目前實務上緩起訴之運作狀況，以預防被告再犯之立法初衷為著力點，探討在現行法制下附條件緩起訴之應然面與實然面之落差，並以外國法制作為借鏡，提出緩起訴制度重新思考的方向與建議。期使未來實務上檢察官在作成附條件緩起訴處分時，能夠從預防被告再犯的角度出發，思考附條件緩起訴「應該」要達到怎樣的效果，並藉由參考外國法制之程序上配套措施，相關配套之引進必要性與可能性之探討，希冀附條件緩起訴能夠發揮達到預被被告再犯之目的與效果。