Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T09:14:25.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparative Study of Penal Severity: Some Methodological Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

Peter N. Grabosky
Peter N. Grabosky*
Affiliation:
Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut - U.S.A
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One explanation for the dearth of comparative studies of penal severity is the unhappy reality that such endeavors inevitably encounter methodological problems of a forbidding nature. While some problems of conceptualization and measurement have proven to be insurmountable, thus precluding the testing of theory in a definitive, universal sense (accross all jurisdictions and for all time), such impediments should not deter prospective researchers altogether. While a few problems will remain intractable, others can be mitigated or circumvented through a judicious choice of measurement strategy and research design. What does exist for the comparative researcher is the inviting opportunity to formulate general propositions, then to test them in a succession of different, albeit limited settings (Zetterberg, 1966. pp. 126-8).

Information

Type
V. — Methodology
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 17 , Issue 1-2 , 1978 , pp. 209 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 International Society for Criminology

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

(*)

The author wishes to acknowledge the support of the Rüssel Sage Foundation, and the helpful advice of colleagues in the preparation of this essay.

References

ARCHER, (D.) and GARTNER, (R.): «Violent Acts and Violent Times: A Comparative Approach to Post-war Homicide Rates». American Sociological Review, December 1976, Vol. 41, pp. 937–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENGTSSON, (H.): «The Temperance Movement and Temperance Legislation in Sweden», The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1938, Vol. 197, pp. 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BERK, (R.A.): The Measure of Justice, Academic Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
BILES, (D.) and MULLIGAN, (G.): «Mad or Bad? The Enduring Dilemma», British Journal of Criminology, 1973, Vol. 13, n° 3, pp. 275–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLACK, (D.J.): The Behavior of Law, Academic Press, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
BLUMSTEIN, (A.), COHEN, (J.) and NAGIN, (D.): «The Dynamics of a Homeostatic Punishment Process», Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, September 1976, Vol. 67, n° 3, pp. 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOHRNSTEDT, (G.W.): «Observations on the Measurement of Change», in Borgatta, E.F. and Bohrnstedt, G.W. (eds.) Sociological Methodology 1969, Josscy-Bass. San Francisco. 1969, pp. 113–136.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, (D.T.) and FISKE, (E.M.): «Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix», Psychological Bulletin, 1959, Vol. 56, pp. 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAPORASO, (JA.) and ROOS, (L.J. jr.): Quasi Experimental Approaches: Testing Theory and Evaluating Policy, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1973.Google Scholar
CHRISTIE, (N.): «Changes in Penal Values». Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, 1968, Vol. 2, pp. 161–172.Google Scholar
«Utility and Social Value in Decisions on Punishment», in Hood, Roger, (ed.) Crime, Criminology and Public Policy, Free Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
COHEN, (J.A.): The Criminal Process in the People's Republic of China, 1949-1963, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DURKHEIM, (E.): «Two Laws of Penal Evolution», (William Jeffrey, Jr. tr.) University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1969, Vol. 28, p. 32.Google Scholar
FEELEY, (M.): «The Concept of Laws in Social Science: A Critique and Notes on an Expanded View». Law and Society Review, Summer 1976. Vol. 10, n° 4, pp. 497–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GIBBS, (J.P.): Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence, Elsevier, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
GLASS, (G.V.) et al.: Design and Analysis of Time Series Experiments, Colorado Associated Universities Press, Boulder, 1975.Google Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, (A.S.): The Insanity Defense, Yale University Press. New Haven, 1967.Google Scholar
GORANSSON, (H.): «Treatment of Criminals and Other Asocial Individuals», The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1939, Vol. 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GROTIUS, (H.): De Jure Belli et Pacis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1853.Google Scholar
GURR, (T.R.): Politimetrics: An introduction to Quantitative Macropolitics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1972.Google Scholar
HEINZ, (J.), GETTLEMAN, (R.) and SEESKIN, (M.): «Legislative Politics and the Criminal Law». Northwestern University Law Review, 1969, Vol. 64, pp. 277–358.Google Scholar
HIBBS, (DA.): «Problems of Statistical Estimation and Causal Inference in Time Series Regression Models», in Costner, H. (ed.) Sociological Metho-dology 1973-1974. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, 1974, pp. 252–289. On Analysing the Effects of Policy Interventions: Box-Jenkins and Box-Tiao vs. Structural Equation Models, Center for International Studies, M.I.T. Publication C/74-33, Cambridge, 1974.Google Scholar
«Industrial Conflict in Advanced Industrial Societies», The American Political Science Review, December 1976, Vol. 70, n° 4, pp. 1033–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JASINSKI, (J.): «The Punitiveness of Criminal Justice Systems (A Cross-National Perspectives». The Polish Sociological Bulletin, 1976. n“ 1. pp. 43–51.Google Scholar
KINBERG, (O.): «Criminal Policv in Sweden During the Past Fifty Years». Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1933, Vol. 24, pp. 314–335.Google Scholar
KITTRIE, (N.N.): The Right to Be Different: Deviance and Enforced Therapy, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1971.Google Scholar
KOBRIN, (S.) et al.: The Deterrent Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Sanction Strategies, U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Washington, 1972.Google Scholar
LIJPHART, (A.): «The Comparable Cases Strategy in Comparative Research». Comparative Political studies, July 1975, Vol. 8, n° 2, pp. 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NERLOVE, (M.): «Further Evidence on the Estimation of Dynamic Economic Relations from a Time Series of Cross Sections». Econometrica, March 1971, Vol. 39, pp. 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEWMAN, (G.): Comparative Deviance: Perception and Law in Six Cultures, Elsevier, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
PELZ, (D.) and ANDREWS, (F.): «Detecting Causal Priorities in Panel Data», American Sociological Review, 1964, Vol. 29, pp. 836–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRZEWORSKI, (A.) and TEUNE, (H.): The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, John Wiley, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
ROSS, (H.L.): «The Neutralization of Severe Penalties: Some Traffic Law studies», Law and Society Review, Spring 1976, Vol. 10, n° 3, pp. 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHINGLES, (R.): «Causal Inference in Cross Lagged Panel Analysis», Political Methodology, 1976, Vol. 3, pp. 95–133.Google Scholar
SLIWOWSKI, (G.): «La Sociologie du temps et la peine privative de liberté», Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, 1974. n° 2, pp. 295–312.Google Scholar
SMELSER, (N.J.): Comparative Research in the Social Sciences, Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, 1976.Google Scholar
SOROKIN, (P.): «Fluctuation of Ethicojuridical Mentality in Criminal Law», in Sociocultural Dynamics, American Book Co., 1937. Vol. 2. pp. 523–632.Google Scholar
STEYN, (J.H.): «The Punishment Scene in South Africa», in Hood, Roger (ed.), Crime, Criminology, and Public Policy, Free Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
STINCHCOMBE, (A.L.): Constructing Social Theories, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
STOHL, (M.): War and Domestic Political Violence: The American Capacity for Repression and Reaction, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1976.Google Scholar
SULLIVAN, (J.L.): «Multiple Indicators: Some Criteria of Selection», in Bialock, Hubert (ed.). Measurement in the Social Sciences, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, 1974.Google Scholar
TUFTE, (E.R.): Data Analysis for Politics and Policy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1974.Google Scholar
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, CENSUS OFFICE: Report on Crime, Pauperism, and Benevolence in the United States at the Eleventh Census, 1890, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1896.Google Scholar
ZETTERBERG, (H.L.): On Theory and Verification in Sociology, Bedminster Press, Totowa. (3rd. ed.). 1966.Google Scholar