Modeling Change in Perceptions about Sanction Threats: The Neglected Linkage in Deterrence Theory

Deterrence theory describes a process of offender decision making that consists of two linkages—one in which official sanctions and other information affect a would-be offenders perceptions about the risks of criminal conduct, and another in which such perceptions influence the decision whether or not to offend. Decades worth of empirical research has concentrated virtually exclusively on this latter linkage, and in so doing, has produced an incomplete account of the deterrence process. This article develops a model of how perceptions of sanction certainty are modified in response to an individuals involvement in criminal activity and the consequences (if any) therefrom. Implications of the model are tested with data from a multi-wave, panel survey of 1,530 high school students from the southeastern U.S. Key findings include: the manner in which new information affects perceived certainty depends on the level of perceived certainty before the new information is received, and the extent of peer offending was one of the most influential factors in determining change in perceived sanction certainty over time.     

Self-Control,Violent Offending,and Homicide Victimization: Assessing the General Theory of Crime

Criminologists have long recognized that offending and victimization share common ground. Using Gottfredson and Hirschis general theory of crime, with its emphasis on self-control as a theoretical backdrop, we examine the extent to which self-control is related to both violent offending and homicide victimization. To examine this issue, we use 5-year post-parole data on violent offending and homicide victimization from a sample of parolees from the California Youth Authority. Using rare-events logistic regression models, results indicate that self-control is related to each outcome, but that other risk factors are also uniquely related to each outcome. The implications of this study for theory and future research are addressed.To whom correspondence should be addressed: Department of Criminology, Law and Society, University of Florida, P.O. Box 115950, 201 Walker Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-5950; Phone: +1-352-392-1025, ext. 213; E-mail: apiquero@ufl.edu     

Challenges and Outcomes at the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

From 1 to 12 December 2003, the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention took place in Milan, Italy. This conference continued the laborious effort of developing an international climate regime by preparing for the Kyoto Protocol’s entry into force. Some two dozen decisions were adopted on a wide range of options for responding to climate change. This paper assesses the progress achieved at the conference on a number of issues. Among these were operational details for implementing forestry projects under the Convention’s Clean Development Mechanism, and guidelines for reporting on greenhouse gas emissions and removals from agriculture, forestry and land-use change. Parties also decided on rules with respect to two funds, the Special Climate Change Fund and the Least Developed Country Fund. With respect to developing countries, Parties continued discussions on rules for building response capacity in light of the expected adverse effects of climate change and transferring environmentally sound technology. They also discussed how to incorporate scientific advice from the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into the negotiations. Although Russia did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol prior to the conference, Milan demonstrated momentum and interest among Parties to support the climate regime. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the detailed discussions were able to contribute to preparing for the long term. To this end, this paper concludes that more discussion and leadership is required to bridge the North/South gap if a post-2012 climate regime is to stand.     

Rationality between the maximizers and the satisficers

It is argued that by explicating rationality in terms of benefits balancing or outweighing costs instead of in terms of maximizing or satisficing something, a more adequate view of rationality is obtained.I would like to thank Myles Brand, Hugh Lehman, Michael Martin, Ian Mitroff, Michael Ruse and Gordon Welty for their thoughtful comments and encouragement.