Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

General Prevention: Does It Work?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Women and Children as Victims and Offenders: Background, Prevention, Reintegration

Abstract

A meta-analysis based on 700 international empirical studies on negative general prevention with 7822 effect estimates investigates whether deterrent effects are dependent on the age of the target group, and with which criminal offences deterrent effects exist. Differences in the study design and the consideration of theoretical principles are also included in the analysis. It is shown that the latter in particular has a significant impact on the study result: if an economic theory of behavior is used as a basis, the deterrence hypothesis is refuted less often than with a recourse to criminological-sociological theories. Another result is that deterrent effects are confirmed relatively rarely for young people, and that deterrent effects vary depending on the criminal offence. They are relatively low in the case of homicide, and are higher—and significant on average—in the case of property damages and theft of more expensive goods. The probability of punishment has a deterrent effect which may, however, hardly be expected of more severe penalties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Catudal (1985); Fuhrer (2009); Hinz and Becker (2012); Ogilvie-White (2011).

  2. 2.

    Wippmann (1999), p. 473.

  3. 3.

    Beccaria (1766); Bentham (1823).

  4. 4.

    Beccaria (1766), p. 167; Müller (1996), p. 18.

  5. 5.

    Baurmann (1981), p. 19; Burns (2005), p. 46.

  6. 6.

    Beccaria (1766).

  7. 7.

    Baurmann (1981); Bentham (1823).

  8. 8.

    Feuerbach (1799), pp. 38–45.

  9. 9.

    Becker (1968); Ehrlich (1973); Ehrlich (1975); Ehrlich (1977).

  10. 10.

    Jescheck und Weigend (1996).

  11. 11.

    Decisions by the Federal Court of Justice in criminal matters, Vol. 17, p. 321, 324; Vol. 20, pp. 264, 267; Vol. 28, pp. 318, 326.

  12. 12.

    Decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court Vol. 21, pp. 391, 404; Vol. 39, pp. 1, 57; Vol. 45, pp. 187, 253.

  13. 13.

    Brunner und Dölling 2002: 40 and onward.

  14. 14.

    Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I, p. 2894.

  15. 15.

    Bundeskriminalamt (2013), p. 69; own calculations.

  16. 16.

    Bundeskriminalamt (2013), p. 41.

  17. 17.

    See e.g. Farin (1994); Fricke and Treinis (1985); Hedges and Olkin (1985); Rosenthal (1991); Wolf (1986).

  18. 18.

    Eisele (1999).

  19. 19.

    Nagin (1978).

  20. 20.

    Petrosino (1997).

  21. 21.

    Cameron (1988).

  22. 22.

    Chan and Oxley (2004).

  23. 23.

    Yang and Lester (2008).

  24. 24.

    Hermann (2012). The study originated as part of the study introduced herein.

  25. 25.

    Prof. Dr. Dieter Dölling, Prof. Dr. Dieter Hermann and Dr. Andreas Woll (Universität Heidelberg, Institute of Criminology) and Prof. Dr. Horst Entorf and Dr. Thomas Rupp (Universität Frankfurt am Main, Department of Economics).

  26. 26.

    Dölling et al. (2011); see also Rupp (2008).

  27. 27.

    Stanley (2001); Antony and Entorf (2003).

  28. 28.

    Wagner and Weiß (2006).

  29. 29.

    Wagner and Weiß (2006), p. 495.

  30. 30.

    Durkheim (2002).

  31. 31.

    Robinson (1950).

  32. 32.

    Scheler (1926); Mannheim (1970).

  33. 33.

    Auer (2005); Böckenförde (2001); Dahrendorf (2006); Dietz (2005); Dölling (2007); Dölling (2012).Manstetten (2002); Weber (1980).

  34. 34.

    Instead of many: Dölling et al. (2011).

  35. 35.

    See also Dölling and Hermann (2012).

  36. 36.

    Dünkel (2010); Iffland and Balling (1999); Schöch (1991); Spirgath 2013; Vollrath and Krüger (1999).

  37. 37.

    The difference in the results on capital punishment between Tables 1 and 3 is based on different case numbers. Table 1 considered all effect estimates from studies on capital punishment, whereby some studies refer not to willful homicides. Table 3, on the other hand, only takes into account such effect estimates from studies on capital punishment that relate to premeditated murder.

  38. 38.

    Folter (2014).

References

  • Antony, J., & Entorf, H. (2003). Zur Gültigkeit der Abschreckung im Sinne der ökonomischen Theorie der Kriminalität: Grundzüge einer Meta-Studie. In H.-J. Albrecht & H. Entorf (Eds.), Kriminalität, Ökonomie und Europäischer Sozialstaat (pp. 167–185). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, K. H. (2005). Das Menschenbild als rechtsethische Dimension der Jurisprudenz. Wien: LIT-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baurmann, M. (1981). Folgenorientierung und subjektive Verantwortungslosigkeit. Baden Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, C. (1766). Über Verbrechen und Strafen. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von W. Alff, 1988. Frankfurt/Main: Insel-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1823). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Reprint, 1996. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böckenförde, E.-W. (2001). Vom Wandel des Menschenbildes im Recht. Münster: Rhema-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R., & Dölling, D. (2002). Jugendgerichtsgesetz. Kommentar (11th ed.). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundeskriminalamt (Ed.) (2013). Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Berichtsjahr 2012. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. H. (2005). Happiness and utility: Jeremy Bentham’s equation. Utilitas, 17(1), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, S. (1988). The economics of crime deterrence: A survey of theory and evidence. Kyklos, 41(2), 301–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catudal, H. M. (1985). Nuclear deterrence, does it deter? Berlin: Berlin-Verl. Spritz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., & Oxley, D. (2004). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A review of the research evidence. Crime and Justice Bulletin No., 84, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. (2006). Homo Sociologicus. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte, Bedeutung und Kritik der Kategorie der sozialen Rolle (16th ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, A. (2005). Der homo oeconomicus. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dölling, D. (2007). Zur Willensfreiheit aus strafrechtlicher Sicht. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 1(1), 59–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dölling, D. (2012). Menschenbilder in der Kriminologie. In M. Hilgert & M. Wink (Eds.), Menschen-Bilder. Darstellungen des Humanen in der Wissenschaft. Heidelberger Jahrbücher (pp. 281–289). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dölling, D., Entorf, H., Hermann, D., & Rupp, T. (2011). Meta-analysis of empirical studies on deterrence. In H. Kury & E. Shea (Eds.), Punitivity international developments (Vol. 3, pp. 315–378). Bochum: Brockmeyer Universitätsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dölling, D., Hermann, D. (2012). Zur generalpräventiven Abschreckungswirkung des Strafrechts bei jungen Menschen. In: Deutsche Vereinigung für Jugendgerichte und Jugendgerichtshilfen e.V. (eds) Achtung (für) Jugend! Praxis und Perspektiven des Jugendkriminalrechts. Dokumentation des 28. Deutschen Jugendgerichtstages vom 11. bis 14. September 2010 in Münster (pp. 427–439). Mönchengladbach: Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dünkel, F. (2010). Greifswalder Forschungen zum Alkohol im Straßenverkehr. In D. Dölling, B. Götting, B.-D. Meier, & T. Verrel (Eds.), Verbrechen – Strafe – Resozialisierung. Festschrift für Heinz Schöch zum (Vol. 70, pp. 101–117). Berlin/New York: Geburtstag. De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, É. (2002). Die Regeln der soziologischen Methode. Hrsg. u. eingel. von René König. -1st edn [reprint]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, I. (1973). Participation in illegitimate activities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 521–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, I. (1975). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death. American Economic Review, 65(3), 397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, I. (1977). Capital punishment and deterrence: Some further thoughts and additional evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 85(4), 741–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisele, H. (1999). Die general- und spezialpräventive Wirkung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen. Methoden, Ergebnisse, Metaanalyse. Dissertation, Universität Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farin, E. (1994). Forschungsperspektive und Methodik der Metaanalyse. Forschungsberichte des Psychologischen Instituts der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, No. 113. Freiburg i. Br: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerbach, P. J. A. (1799). Revision der Grundsätze und Grundbegriffe des positiven peinlichen Rechts (Vol. 1). Erfurt: Henningsche Buchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folter, C. (2014). Die Abschreckungswirkung der Todesstrafe. Eine qualitative Metaanalyse. Berlin: LIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricke, R., Treinis, G. (1985). Einführung in die Metaanalyse. Methoden der Psychologie, Vol. 3. Huber, Bern u.a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrer, U. (2009). Lehrbuch Erziehungspsychologie. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, D. (2012). Menschenbild und Forschung – generalpräventive Untersuchungen zur Todesstrafe. In M. Hilgert & M. Wink (Eds.), Menschen-Bilder. Darstellungen des Humanen in der Wissenschaft. Heidelberger Jahrbücher (pp. 291–307). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinz, A., & Becker, B. (2012). Belohnung und Bestrafung. In U. Sandfuchs, W. Melzer, B. Dühlmeier, & A. Rausch (Eds.), Handbuch Erziehung (pp. 596–599). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iffland, R., & Balling, P. (1999). Erste Auswirkungen der 0,5-Promille-Grenze auf das Fahrverhalten alkoholisierter Verkehrsteilnehmer. Blutalkohol, 36(1), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jescheck, H.- H., Weigend, T. (1996). Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil (5th edn). Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, K. (1970). Wissenssoziologie. Auswahl aus dem Werk (2nd edn), edited by Kurt H Wolff. Luchterhand, Neuwied und Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manstetten, R. (2002). Das Menschenbild in der Ökonomie – Der homo oeconomicus und die Anthropologie von Adam Smith. Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, J. (1996). Ökonomische Grundlagen der Generalprävention. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. (1978). General deterrence: A review of the empirical evidence. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, & D. Nagin (Eds.), Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates (pp. 95–139). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie-White, T. (2011). On nuclear deterrence. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A. J. (1997). ‘What works?’ revisited again: A meta-analysis of randomized experiments in: rehabilitation, deterrence and delinquency prevention. Diss. Rutgers University, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Revised Edition. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, T. (2008). Meta-analysis of crime and deterrence: A comprehensive review of the literature. Dissertation, Technische Universität Darmstadt. http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/1054/2/rupp_diss.pdf (11/2008).

  • Scheler, M. (1926). Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Der Neue Geist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schöch, H. (1991). Kriminologische und sanktionsrechtliche Aspekte der Alkoholdelinquenz im Verkehr. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 11(1), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirgath, T. (2013). Zur Abschreckungswirkung des Strafrechts - Eine Metaanalyse kriminalstatistischer Untersuchungen. Reihe: Kriminalwissenschaftliche Schriften, Vol. 39. Berlin: LIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, T. D. (2001). From wheat to chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollrath, M., & Krüger, H.-P. (1999). Auswirkungen der “Androhung” 0,5-Promille-Grenze im Kontext längerfristiger Entwicklungen. Blutalkohol, 36, 349–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner. M, Weiß, B. (2006). Meta-Analyse als Methode der Sozialforschung. In: Diekmann A (ed) Methoden der Sozialforschung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 44 (pp. 479–504). Sonderheft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1980). In J. Winckelmann (Ed) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der Verstehenden Soziologie (5th edn) (Studienausgabe). Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wippmann, D. (1999). Atrocities, deterrence, and the limits of international justice. Fordham International Law Journal, 23, 473–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis. Quantitative methods for research synthesis. University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 59. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, B., & Lester, D. (2008). The deterrent effect of executions: A meta-analysis thirty years after Ehrlich. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Dieter Hermann & Dieter Dölling

Authors
  1. Dieter Hermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dieter Dölling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dieter Hermann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Heuweiler, Germany

    Helmut Kury

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Sławomir Redo

  3. Zürich, Switzerland

    Evelyn Shea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hermann, D., Dölling, D. (2016). General Prevention: Does It Work?. In: Kury, H., Redo, S., Shea, E. (eds) Women and Children as Victims and Offenders: Background, Prevention, Reintegration. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28424-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28424-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28423-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28424-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation