Deterrence and Specific Offenses

Deterrence should not be treated as a monolithic problem. General propositions accepting or rejecting deterrence ought to belong to the past. The question is not whether punishment has deterrent effects, but rather under what conditions and to what extent the deterrent purpose is effected. It is important initially to distinguish between the deterrent effect of the threat of punishment (general deterrence) and the deterrent effect of the imposition of punishment (special deterrence).' Professor Chambliss has suggested that the distinction between general and special deterrence, perhaps useful in the abstract, is difficult to maintain in empirical research and may in fact obscure more than it clarifies.2 His own discussion, however, demonstrates that failure to make the distinction may lead to mistaken conclusions. Chambliss concludes, on the basis of research showing high rates of recidivism among drug addicts, that drug addiction, like murder, is relatively unaffected by either the threat or imposition of punishment.3 This statement may be correct if restricted to those users who have already become addicts, since the great physiological need for drugs may vitiate the deterrent effect of punishment. But it is not correct to presuppose, as does Chambliss, that the limited success in the treatment of drug addicts necessarily suggests a similar failure to deter non-addicts and drug dealers. In fact, statistics concerning recidivism among drug addicts reveal nothing about the deterrent effect of drug laws on nonaddicts and drug dealers. Howard Becker's study of the marijuana user may be instructive.4 Becker identifies three stages in the career of a marijuana user: beginner, occasional user, and regular user. The be-