The distinction between general and specific deterrence is widely recognized and accepted by deterrence researchers, and is used commonly to classify deterrence studies. However, the logical and empirical grounds for the distinction are not as clear as they might appear, and the conventional conception has done more to obfuscate than to clarify the deterrence process. Following a discussion of these issues, the authors propose a reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence, and apply it to several current controversies in the deterrence literature.

No abstract

Sampson and Laub (1993) provided a major contribution to the study of criminal careers by linking criminal behavior to life‐course transitions, such as marriage, employment, and entry into the military. To interpret their findings, these investigators relied exclusively on control theory. In a sharp departure from that position, this study offers evidence that life‐course transitions affect criminal behavior by altering relations with delinquent peers. Focusing on marriage, the analysis shows that the transition to marriage is followed by a dramatic decline in time spent with friends as well as reduced exposure to delinquent peers, and that these factors largely explain the association between marital status and delinquent behavior. The findings suggest that changing patterns of peer relations over the life course are essential for understanding criminal life‐course trajectories.

The group character of delinquency has been recognized for more than 60 years, but the nature of delinquent groups remains poorly understood. Data from the National Survey of Youth are used to examine delinquent groups, with special attention to the identity and role of instigators in those groups. Delinquent groups are small and transitory, but offenders commonly belong to multiple groups and thus have a larger network or pool of accomplices. Groups appear to be more specialized than individuals, which suggests that offense specialization is the primary source of group differentiation. Most delinquent groups have an identifiable instigator, a person who tends to be older, more experienced, and emotionally close to other members. Males almost always follow other males, whereas females are much more likely to follow a member of the opposite sex. As a rule, offenders do not consistently assume the role of instigator or joiner over time, but instead switch from one role to the other depending on their relative position in the group in which they are participating at the time. The roles that offenders adopt are thus determined, not by some stable individual trait, but by the situational interaction of group and individual characteristics.

Although the association between delinquent friends and delinquent behavior is well established, the mechanism by which delinquency is socially transmitted remains unclear. Sutherland 3 theory of diflerential association holds that delinquency is a consequence of attitudes favorable to the violation of the law, attitudes that are acquired through intimate social interaction with peers. An analysis of data from the National Youth Survey indicates that peer attitudes do affect delinquency. But the effect of peers' attitudes is small in comparison to that of peers' behavior, and the effect of peers' behavior remains strong even when peers, attitudes and the adolescent's own attitude are controlled. Moreover, when the behavior and attitudes of peers are inconsistent, the behavior of peers appears to outweigh or override the attitudes of peers. These findings suggest that delinquency is not primarily a consequence of attitudes acquired from peers. Rather, it more likely stems from other social learning mechanisms, such as imitation or vicarious reinforcement, or from group pressures to conform.