For Whom Do Sanctions Deter and Label?
Abstract
Deterrence and labeling theories make opposing predictions regarding the effect of sanctions on subsequent crime. Deterrence anticipates that sanctions deter, while labeling anticipates that sanctions amplify future crime. The knowledge base with respect to this question is vast, and while a handful of studies provide evidence of a deterrent effect, the majority of studies indicate a null effect. Our study examines whether an arrest leads to an increase in subsequent crime, but extends the knowledge base by considering whether an arrest has the same effect across offender trajectories and by employing techniques that deal with sample selection bias. Thus, we assess for whom sanctions deter or exacerbate subsequent offending. Results indicate that for greater risk youth, arrest amplifies subsequent delinquency, net of other effects, but not among lower risk youth. Thus, experiencing an arrest aggravates subsequent delinquency among some but not all persons. Implications and directions for future research are identified.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other scholars have reported no effect or mixed results of justice system contact on subsequent behavior.
“Other scholars, however, still have reported no effect of justice system contact on subsequent behavior or have reported mixed results (see, e.g., Morris & Piquero, 2013; Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, & Madensen, 2006; Sherman, 1993).”
From Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins (2020) · cites this paper as Morris & Piquero, 2013
PSM studies have shown that the experience of an arrest amplifies subsequent offending, especially for youth at greatest risk for future antisocial behavior.
“Additionally, the findings from these PSM studies have shown that the experience of an arrest amplifies subsequent offending (Wiley & Esbensen, 2016; Wiley et al., 2013), especially for youth who are at the greatest risk for future antisocial behavior (Morris & Piquero, 2013).”
From Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins (2020) · cites this paper as Morris & Piquero, 2013
Cites
Group-Based Modeling of Development
NAGIN, D. (2005) · doi:10.4159/9780674041318 · Cited by 4,164 · see citing works
Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511499517 · Cited by 828 · see citing works
Deterring Delinquents: A Rational Choice Model of Theft and Violence
Matsueda, R. L., Kreager, D. A., & Huizinga, D. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100105 · Cited by 467 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Also using the DYS data, Matsueda, Kreager, and Huizinga (2006) found that as the experiential risk of apprehension increased so did the perceived chance of apprehension which, in turn, was associated with a decrease in future offending.”
MethodElaborating the Individual Difference Component in Deterrence Theory
Piquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T. (2011) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Motz, R. T., Barnes, J. C., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Cullen, F. T., Houts, R., Wertz, J., & Moffitt, T. E. (2020) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12236 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“Additionally, the findings from these PSM studies have shown that the experience of an arrest amplifies subsequent offending (Wiley & Esbensen, 2016; Wiley et al., 2013), especially for youth who are at the greatest risk for future antisocial behavior (Morris & Piquero, 2013).”
BackgroundResultWard, J. T., Krohn, M. D., & Gibson, C. L. (2014) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260513505219 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Morris, R. G., & Piquero, A. R.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- Venue
- Justice Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 837-868
- ISSN
- 0741-8825 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9109
- OpenAlex
- W2101312367
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 10.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Justice Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- sanctions, deterrence, labeling theory, arrests, juvenile delinquency, offender risk, sample selection bias, recidivism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review