No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Criminology and Criminalization: Defiance and the Science of the Criminal Sanction*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
Summary
When one speaks of penal « inflation » and of the danger that the penal system is losing its role in the regulation of human conduct, one should not be concerned with the severity of the intervention, but with its excessive use, since it is that which creates an attitude of defiance with regard to the law. Criminalisation only has meaning when it is supported by broad consensus and when it can be proven that it contributes to the respect of the norm.
Resume
Lorsqu’on parle de l’inflation pénale et du danger que le pénal perde son rôle dans la régulation des conduites humaines, ce n’est plus de la gravité de l’intervention qu’il faut s’inquiéter, mais de sa diffusion excessive, qui crée une défiance par rapport à la loi. La criminalisation n’a de sens que si elle repose sur un large consensus et s’il se vérifie qu’elle contribue au respect de la norme.
Resumen
Cuando se habla de inflación penal y del peligro que lo penal pierda su papel en la regulación de las conductas humanas, no es de la gravedad de la intervención que hay que preocuparse sino de su difusión excesiva, que crea una actitud de pérdida de confianza respecto de la ley. La criminalización adquiere sentido sólo si se apoya en un consenso amplio y si se comprueba que contribuye al respeto de la norma.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1993 International Society for Criminology
Footnotes
(*)
The comments given by professor KILLIAS in Budapest will be published in the next edition of the Annals. (Note of the Editor).
References
REFERENCES
Beirne, Piers (1993). Inventing Criminology: Essays on the Rise of «Homo Criminalis». Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Black, Donald (1970). The Production of Crime Rates. American Sociological Review. — (1976). The Behavior of Law. N.Y.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, David P. (1983) «Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice» In Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds., Crime and Justice, Vol. 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinsey, Karyl (1992). «Deterrence and Alienation Effects of IRS Enforcement: An Analysis of Survey Data.» In Joel Slemrod, ed., Why People Pay Taxes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, Albert J. Jr. (1984). «Consequences of Compliance and Deterrence Models of Law Enforcement for the Exercise of Police Discretion.» Law and Contemporary Problems 47 (4): 83–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, Toni and Braithwaite, John (1993). Reintegrative Shaming and Compliance With Regulatory Standards. Unpublished ms., Australian National University, Research School of the Social Sciences.Google Scholar
O’Connell, Terry and Moore, David (1992). «Wagga Juvenile Cautioning Process: The General Applicability of Family Group Conferences for Juvenile Offenders and Their Victims». Rural Society 2: 16–19.Google Scholar
Scheff, Thomas J. and Retzinger, Suzanne M. (1991). Emotions and Violence: Shame and Rage in Destructive Conflicts. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1992). Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. N.Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1993). «Defiance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction.» Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. and Berk, Richard A. (1984). «The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault.» American Sociological Review 49: 261–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, Lawrence W. and Smith, Douglas A. (1992). «Crime, Punishment and Stake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic Violence.» American Sociological Review 57: 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar