Evidence for the Adoption of a Learning Theory Approach to Criminal Deterrence: A Preliminary Study
It is a long-held belief that inflicting punishment on criminals will reduce fiiture rates of crime in society. In line with this belief, the current administration in the United States has introduced punishment policies with the aim to “get tough” on violent and drug-related crime. In contrast to this belief in the effectiveness of punishment on crime, many researchers have found that punished offenders evidence similar or higher rates of recidivism than non-punished offenders (DiChiara & Galliher, 1984; Gibbs, 1975; Tittle & Logan, 1973; Zimring and Hawkins, 1973). Previous research studies concerning this topic have been designed solely to test the theory of specific deterrence. It is our contention that methodological and theoretical problems with these previous studies may have impeded their ability to assess the deterrent effect of punishment. We suggest that learning theory provides an alternative theoretical basis for the study of criminal deterrence. The availability of a large-scale, population-based longitudinal data set provides us with the ability to test principles of learning theory as they relate to criminal deterrence, and also to overcome the methodological pitfalls in this area of research.
RECONVICTION RATES OF ADULT MALES AFTER DIFFERENT SENTENCES
For a long time the only comparison of reconviction rates after the different sentences available to English courts was Hammond's (1964). This was based on a sample consisting of all offenders convicted in the Metropolitan Police District during March and April 1957. Now that Phillpotts and Lancucki (1979) have published details of a much later and better sample it seems worthwhile to carry out an analysis on Hammond's lines and see how the results compare. The Phillpotts-Lancucki sample consisted of one person in every six (approximately) recorded in the Home Office's Offenders' Index as con victed of a standard list offence in the course of January 1971. Names were taken systematically from an alphabetical list, so that people who had been convicted more than once in that month had no greater chance of being selected than those convicted only once. The follow-up in search of standard list reconvictions covered the six years following the conviction. The information recorded also included previous convictions which had been incurred after 1962 (i.e. in the preceding eight years). The findings were presented in Home Office Research Study 53 ; but the only table (3.4) which dealt with the relationship between the type of sentence and reconviction rates did not take into account the variation in reconviction rates for different types of offence. Phillpotts and Lancucki were kind enough to provide us with the necessary raw figures for a more thorough analysis of the reconviction rates for the 2,06g1 men aged 21 or older who had been sentenced in normal ways 2 for the main standard list offence groups: personal violence, sexual offences, burglary or robbery (together), theft or dishonest handling (together), fraud or forgery (together) and criminal damage. (We would like to record here our thanks for their helpful ness, both in providing the data and in commenting on our analysis.) Their sample is in several ways preferable to Hammond's : ( 1 ) it represents courts throughout England, not merely in London; (2) the follow-up period is a year longer; (3) the information about previous and subsequent convictions is likely to be more accurate because of the existence of the Offenders' Index, which was not set up until the early sixties; (4) the later date of the sample is an obvious advantage, especially since it means that suspended sentences are amongst the disposals. * Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. 1 The entire sample of 5,000 or so included females, young adults and juveniles. We chose adult male offenders because sentencing possibilities are less complicated for them than for young adults or juveniles and because they are more numerous than adult female offenders. a i.e. absolute or conditional discharge, fine, probation, suspended sentence, immediate imprison ment. Community service was not available as a sentence in 1971.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.