Restrictive Deterrence in Drug Offenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Mixed Studies

Abstract

Deterrence by punishment aims to prevent a crime; however, it is not always successful. Restrictive deterrence explains the continuous criminal activities that occur despite deterrence; offenders enact various strategies to avoid detection, which is more typical among drug offenders given that they have a high frequency of offending and exposure to punishment. This systematic review provides an in-depth understanding of restrictive deterrence of drug offenders. Two prominent themes, “restrictive deterrence strategy” and “deterrability and restrictive deterrence,” depict drug offenders' restrictive deterrence and effectively fit within the certainty–severity framework of punishment. Future studies should investigate restrictive deterrence strategies in the after-arrest context, the facilitative effect of perception of risk on strategy development, and facilitators or inhibitors affecting the diffusion of restrictive deterrence strategies.

Restrictive deterrence in Hong Kong drug dealing: exploring a framework of certainty reduction – severity mitigation

“…Certainty of punishment and severity of punishment are the underlying features of deterrence, and they are thought to be the most potent factors in determining whether and how an offender commits a crime (Guan and Lo 2021). Certainty and severity of punishment both serve a deterrent effect in crime commission (Piliavin et al 1986;Williams and Hawkins 1989).…”

“…The third is "sleight of hand", whereby drugs are passed via common hand gestures such as a hug or a slap. Echoing this, Guan and Lo (2021) highlighted two kinds of strategy: certainty reduction and severity mitigation. Within certainty reduction, three different techniques are identified: camouflage in public places, picking a safe time and position, and counter-reconnaissance.…”

“…The above literature suggests that criminals are not necessarily risk-takers, but they respond to risk (Jacobs and Cherbonneau 2014) in a strategic manner to reduce the chances of arrest and sanction. Taking as references the papers by Moeller et al (2016) and Guan and Lo (2021), the present study adopts a certainty -severity framework for punishment by splitting restrictive deterrence strategies into certainty reduction strategies and severity mitigation strategies (Fig. 2).…”

Proactive Criminal Thinking and Restrictive Deterrence: A Pathway to Future Offending and Sanction Avoidance

“…Although harsh legal punishment and vigorous police enforcement inhibit drug markets, street-level policing does not eliminate drug markets and only alters them temporarily [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Specifically, drug offenders’ camouflage, counter-reconnaissance, stashing products, or choosing a less severe activity are all strategies that are perceived by individual as reducing the risk [ 34 ]. Similar sanction avoidance can be seen in other types of crime, such as property crime, cyber hacking, sex crime, among others [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ].…”

“…Similar sanction avoidance can be seen in other types of crime, such as property crime, cyber hacking, sex crime, among others [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. In short, drug offenders adapt to the enforcement policy and continue to commit crimes [ 34 , 42 ]. The introduction of restrictive deterrence fills gaps in the understanding of deterrence by exploring the question of “how” (the expression of crime) beyond the question of “whether” (the initiation and cessation of crime) [ 1 , 36 ].…”