Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract With few exceptions, empirical tests of deterrence theory have limited themselves to a consideration of crimes that are mala in se, such as homicide or the seven “Crime Index” offenses; and they have been based upon analyses of aggregate data that are available from official sources, such as Uniform Crime Reports and National Prisoner Statistics. Inconsistency of findings, limitations of available data, and questions necessarily left unanswered by these approaches to deterrence research provide a rationale for alternative approaches that are based upon unofficial data collected at the individual level, and involving crimes that are mala prohibita, as well as mala in se. Interviews with 321 university students were used to determine relationships between admitted marijuana use (mala prohibita) and theft (mala in se) and perceptions of the severity and certainty of punishment. The data suggest that: (1) perceptions of severe punishment are largely unrelated to admitted theft or marijuana use, (2) “general” deterrence appears not to be working for either offense—that is, punishment of “other” when perceived by “ego” appears unrelated to “ego's” admitted criminality, (3) the expectation that arrest or maximum penalties upon conviction would be likely (certain) for oneself appears somewhat related to lower levels of marijuana use and larceny. However, these latter relationships are stronger for marijuana use—which is mala prohibita—than they are for theft—which is mala in se. Such a discrepancy offers support for theoretical positions taken by Morris (1951), Andenaes (1966), and Zimring (1971).
Waldo et al. (Sat,) studied this question.