A Civilianised Summary Power to Exclude: Perceptual Deterrence, Compliance and Legitimacy

As a response to alcohol-related disorderly behaviours, the use of exclusion has expanded steadily across Australian jurisdictions but with minimal analysis of its effects. Bans, from public or private locations, are typically imposed summarily and presumed to be a meaningful deterrent to future problematic behaviours. The formalisation of licensee banning powers has created a civilianised police-enforceable power to punish by exclusion. In Victoria, the legislative framing of licensee barring order provisions precludes formal monitoring of their use. This article reports findings from interviews conducted with recipients. The conceptual and situational value of barring orders are acknowledged, but their capacity to act as a tangible deterrent or effective agent for behaviour change is far from conclusive. Barring orders constitute a civilianised summary power, which currently operates without scrutiny or accountability. Implications for the operational legitimacy of barring powers emerge from this study, in addition to broader considerations with respect to compliance, enforcement, oversight, and the importance of developing and examining alcohol policies through a gendered lens.

Differenzielle Abschreckbarkeit als Evidenzgrundlage negativer Generalprävention – Eine Bestandsaufnahme der kriminologischen Wissensbasis

ZusammenfassungDie Abschreckungsdoktrin setzt auf Sanktionsfurcht als Mittel zur Eindämmung von Kriminalität. So plausibel die Hypothese, Furcht vor staatlicher Strafe würde Delinquenz verhindern, auch klingt: Empirische Forschung zeichnet ein eher ernüchterndes Bild von den kriminalpräventiven Erträgen angedrohter gerichtlicher Bestrafung. Aus dem Bereich der negativen Generalprävention entfaltet allenfalls die Sanktionierungswahrscheinlichkeit einen mäßigen Verhaltenslenkungseffekt. Das mehrheitliche Ausbleiben nennenswerter Abschreckungserfolge muss aber nicht bedeuten, dass formalen Sanktionierungsrisiken jeglicher Steuerungswert abzusprechen ist. Unter dem Leitkonzept der differenziellen Abschreckbarkeit durchgeführte »Perceptual Deterrence Research« verwirft die Annahme, Abschreckung wirke auf alle Menschen gleich, um sich Bemühungen zur Eingrenzung der für Abschreckungsbotschaften zugänglichen Teilgruppen der Bevölkerung zu widmen. Die hier vorgenommene Sichtung des gesammelten Forschungsstandes zeigt, dass Sanktionsrisikoeffekte über Personen, Situationen und Delikte hinweg variieren. Individuen mit geringer Normakzeptanz, niedriger Selbstkontrolle und zahlreichen Freundschaftskontakten zu delinquenzaffinen Gleichaltrigen können als in einem gehobenen Maße durch ihre Sanktionsrisikowahrnehmung beeinflussbar identifiziert werden. Wenn Menschen mit einer erhöhten Tendenz zur Kriminalität moderat anfällig für Steuerungswirkungen der perzipierten Bestrafungswahrscheinlichkeit sind, attestiert dies der negativen Generalprävention eine gewisse Tauglichkeit als Instrument der Sekundärprävention, welche auf das Management kriminogener Dynamiken in Risikogruppen zielt.

Auditor Actions and the Deterrence of Manager Opportunism: The Importance of Communication to the Board and Consistency with Peer Behavior

Informed by Perceptual Deterrence Theory, we conduct multiple experiments to investigate when and how auditor actions can help deter manager opportunism. In Study 1A we find that managers are less likely to use real earnings management (REM) when they expect auditors to both increase scrutiny and communicate their observations to the board. However, this effect occurs only when managers' operational decisions are inconsistent (versus consistent) with peer behavior. Study 1B findings suggest that increased auditor scrutiny alone (without auditor-board communication) is not likely to deter REM. In Study 2, we find that increased auditor scrutiny with communication to the board effectively deters both accruals-based earnings management (AEM) and REM, reducing the total level of manager opportunism. However, without communication, increased auditor scrutiny deters AEM, but also induces more REM. Our findings highlight the importance of auditor-board communication and demonstrate how auditor actions can contribute to the deterrence of manager opportunism.

Maturity of Judgment and Perceptual Deterrence

Recent deterrence literature has found that the degree to which sanction threats are perceived to influence subsequent offending differs within individuals and between individuals over time. This study examines whether three psychosocial aspects (temperance, perspective, responsibility) relevant to the maturity of judgment predict within-individual and between-individual differences in levels of perceptual deterrence. Random effects regression models with fixed effects (hybrid models) are used to estimate the impact of maturity of judgment on the perceived risks, costs, and benefits of crime among a sample of serious juvenile offenders from the Pathways to Desistance study over 7 years of development. The results support both within-person effects and between-person effects. More mature judgment ability is generally associated with the perception of greater risks, heavier costs of punishment, and fewer rewards of crime. The rate of change in perceptual deterrence by maturity of judgment varies between individuals. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Perceptual Deterrence

In theory, deterrence is a behavioral response to an individual’s perceptions about the certainty and/or severity of criminal justice sanctions. The perceptual underpinnings of compliance with the law are therefore of long-standing interest in perceptual deterrence scholarship. This chapter provides an overview of the broad scope of this scholarship. After reviewing the basic perceptual elements of crime decision-making models, attention turns to a consideration of research on the determinants of sanction perceptions. First, the overall accuracy of sanction perceptions with respect to existing statutes and penalties is discussed. Second, the degree to which an individual’s sanction perceptions are updated in response to his or her experiences as a successful or unsuccessful offender is examined. Third, the manifold research traditions speaking to situational influences on sanction perceptions are surveyed. Emerging dual-process models inspired by research on judgment and decision making are finally considered.