Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:59:54.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Deterrence Theory: Key Findings and Challenges

from Part II - Deterrence and Incapacitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

Benjamin van Rooij
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Amsterdam
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

Abstract: This chapter reviews the key findings of the optimal deterrence theory and discusses the remaining challenges. Some of these challenges reflect current modeling choices and limitations. These include the treatment of the offender’s gains in the social welfare function; the design of the damages multiplier in a realistic, multi-period framework; the effects of different types of uncertainty on behavior; and the study of optional, imperfectly enforced, threshold-based regimes – that is, regimes that reflect the most common real-world regulatory setting. Other challenges arise because several key regulatory features and enforcement outcomes are inconsistent with the deterrence theory’s predictions and prescriptions. These inconsistencies include the “abnormally” high levels of compliance, the pervasiveness of gain-based (rather than harm-based) sanctions, the widespread use of offense history in sanctions design, the variation of sanctions based on legal aggressiveness, and the significance of the offender’s mental state in the determinations of both liability and sanctions. The chapter discusses how the recent optimal deterrence scholarship has addressed – but has not fully resolved – all these challenges.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreoni, James, Erard, Brian, and Feinstein, Jonathan. 1998. “Tax Compliance.” Journal of Economic Literature 36:818–60.Google Scholar
Apel, Robert. 2013. “Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29:67101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Scott, and Raskolnikov, Alex. 2017. “Harmful, Harmless, and Beneficial Uncertainty in Law.” Journal of Legal Studies 46:281307.Google Scholar
Balganesh, Shyamkrishna. 2018. “Copyright as Market Prospect.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 166:443513.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76:169217.Google Scholar
Bennice, Jennifer A., and Resick, Patricia A.. 2003. “Marital Rape.” Trauma, Violence and Abuse 4:228–46.Google Scholar
Bose, Pinaki. 1995. “Anticipatory Compliance and Effective Regulatory Activity.” International Review of Law and Economics 15:1551–9.Google Scholar
Chalfin, Aaron, and McCrary, Justin. 2017. “Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Economic Literature 55:548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chyz, James A., Leung, Winnie Siu Ching, Li, Oliver Zhen, and Rui, Oliver Meng. 2013. “Labor Unions and Tax Aggressiveness.” Journal of Financial Economics 108: 675–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craswell, Richard. 1996. “Damage Multipliers in Market Relationships.” Journal of Legal Studies 25:463–92.Google Scholar
Craswell, Richard. 1999. “Deterrence and Damages: The Multiplier Principle and Its Alternatives.” Michigan Law Review 97:21852238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craswell, Richard, and Calfee, John E.. 1986. “Deterrence and Uncertain Legal Standards.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 2:279303.Google Scholar
Curry, Philip A., and Doyle, Matthew. 2016. “Integrating Market Alternatives into the Economic Theory of Optimal Deterrence.” Economic Inquiry 54:1873–83.Google Scholar
Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe, and Raskolnikov, Alex. in press. “Unexpected Effects of Expected Sanctions.” Journal of Legal Studies.Google Scholar
DeBacker, Jason, Heim, Bradley T., Tran, Anh, and Yuskavage, Alexander. 2018. “Once Bitten, Twice Shy? The Lasting Impact of Enforcement on Tax Compliance.” Journal of Law and Economics 61:135.Google Scholar
Dharmapala, Dhammika, and Garoupa, Nuno. 2004. “Penalty Enhancements for Hate Crimes: An Economic Analysis.” American Law and Economics Review 6:185207.Google Scholar
Demougin, Dominique, and Fluet, Claude. 2006. “Preponderance of Evidence.” European Economic Review 50:963–76.Google Scholar
Desai, Mihir A., and Dharmapala, Dhammika. 2006. “Corporate Tax Avoidance and High-Powered Incentives.” Journal of Financial Economics 79:145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durlauf, Steven N., and Nagin, Daniel S.. 2011. “Imprisonment and Crime: Can Both Be Reduced?Criminology and Public Policy 10:1354.Google Scholar
Emons, Winand. 2003. “A Note on the Optimal Punishment for Repeat Offenders.” International Review of Law and Economics 23:253–9.Google Scholar
Endres, Alfred, and Rundshagen, Bianca. 2016. “Optimal Penalties for Repeat Offenders – The Role of Offense History.” BE Journal of Theoretical Economics 16:545–78.Google Scholar
Hanlon, Michelle, and Heitzman, Shane. 2010. “A Review of Tax Research.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 50:127–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasday, Jill Elaine. 2000. “Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape.” California Law Review 88:13731505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimzade, Nigar, Myles, Gareth D., and Tran-Nam, Binh. 2013. “Applications of Behavioural Economics to Tax Evasion.” Journal of Economic Surveys 27:941–77.Google Scholar
Hawken, Angela, and Kleiman, Mark A. R.. 2009. “Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE.” Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermalin, Benjamin E., Katz, Avery W., and Craswell, Richard. 2007. “Contract Law.” In Handbook of Law and Economics, ed. Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, 403–54. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Huang, Bert. 2016. “Equipoise Effect.” Columbia Law Review 116:15951638.Google Scholar
Hylton, Keith N. 2005. “The Theory of Penalties and the Economics of Criminal Law.” Review of Law and Economics 1:175201.Google Scholar
Hylton, Keith N. 2010. “Intent in Tort Law.” Valparaiso University Law Review 44:1217–42.Google Scholar
Kahan, Marcel. 1989. “Causation and Incentives to Take Care under the Negligence Rule.” Journal of Legal Studies 18:427–47.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis. 2011a. “Optimal Proof Burdens, Deterrence, and the Chilling of Desirable Behavior.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 101:277–80.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis. 2011b. “On the Optimal Burden of Proof.” Journal of Political Economy 119:1104–40.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis. 2012. “Burden of Proof.” Yale Law Journal 121:738859.Google Scholar
Kim, Yungsan. 1996. “Long-Term Firm Performance and Chief Executive Turnover: An Empirical Study of the Dynamics.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 12:480–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, Siu F. 1991. “How to Make the Fine Fit the Corporate Crime? And Analysis of Static and Dynamic Optimal Punishment Theories.” Journal of Public Economics 45:243–56.Google Scholar
Luttmer, Erzo F. P., and Singhal, Monica. 2014. “Tax Morale.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28:149–68.Google Scholar
Miceli, Thomas J., and Bucci, Catherine. 2005. “A Simple Theory of Increasing Penalties for Repeat Offenders.” Review of Law and Economics 1:70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Daniel, and Schmitz, Patrick W.. 2015. “Overdeterrence of Repeat Offenders When Penalties for Frist-Time Offenders Are Restricted.” Economic Letters 129:116–20.Google Scholar
Mungan, Murat 2011. “A Utilitarian Justification for Heightened Standards of Proof in Criminal Trials.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 167:352–70.Google Scholar
Mungan, Murat 2014. “Behavioral Justification for Escalating Punishment Schemes.” International Review of Law and Economics 37:189–97.Google Scholar
Mungan, Murat 2019. “Positive Sanctions versus Imprisonment.” George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper 19–03.Google Scholar
Mungan, Murat, and Klick, Jonathan. 2016. “Identifying Criminals’ Risk Preferences.” Indiana Law Journal 91:791821.Google Scholar
Nagin, Daniel S. 2013. “Deterrence: A Review of the Evidence by a Criminologist for Economists.” Annual Review of Economics 5:83105.Google Scholar
Parker, Jeffrey S. 1993. “The Economics of Mens Rea.” Virginia Law Review 79:741811.Google Scholar
Png, Ivan P. L. 1986. “Optimal Subsidies and Damages in the Presence of Judicial Error.” International Review of Law and Economics 6:101–5.Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Shavell, Steven. 1994. “Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer?Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 10:427–37.Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Shavell, Steven. 1999. “On the Disutility and Discounting of Imprisonment and the Theory of Deterrence.” Journal of Legal Studies 28:116.Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Shavell, Steven. 2007. “The Theory of Public Enforcement of Law.” In Handbook of Law and Economics, ed. Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, 403–54. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1985. “An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law.” Columbia Law Review 85:11931231.Google Scholar
Raskolnikov, Alex. 2013. “Accepting the Limits of Tax Law and Economics.” Cornell Law Review 98:523–90.Google Scholar
Raskolnikov, Alex. 2014. “Irredeemably Inefficient Acts: A Threat to Markets, Firms, and the Fisc.” Georgetown Law Journal 102:1133–89.Google Scholar
Raskolnikov, Alex. 2016. “Six Degrees of Graduation: Law and Economics of Variable Sanctions.” Florida State Law Review 43:1015–42.Google Scholar
Raskolnikov, Alex. 2017. “Probabilistic Compliance.” Yale Journal on Regulation 34:491544.Google Scholar
Raskolnikov, Alex. 2020. “Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Missing Literature.” Supreme Court Economic Review 28:159.Google Scholar
Ross, Laurence H. 1992. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Scholz, John T., and Pinney, Neil. 1995. “Duty, Fear, and Tax Compliance: The Heuristic Basis of Citizenship Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 39:490512.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 1985. “Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent.” Columbia Law Review 85:1232–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 1987. Economic Analysis of Accident Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 2007. “Liability for Accidents.” In Handbook of Law and Economics, ed. Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, 139–82. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Slemrod, Joel. 2004. “The Economics of Corporate Selfishness.” National Tax Journal 57:877–99.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1970. “The Optimum Enforcement of Laws.” Journal of Political Economy 78:526–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Kathleen DeLaney. 2011. “The Case Against a Strict Liability Economic Substance Penalty.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law 13:445–97.Google Scholar
Weisbach, David A. 2002. “Ten Truths about Tax Shelters.” Tax Law Review 55:215–53.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×