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.
THE USE AND EFFECTS OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES IN MUNICIPAL COURTS
With prison, jail, and probation caseloads overloaded, financial penalties appeal as alternative sanctions. Using probation data for cases sentenced in municipal courts, this paper presents regression analyses suggesting that judges tended to employ rational discretion in imposing economic sanctions, for monetary assessments without jail were most likely to be given to low-risk offenders and assignment of probation alone and jail terms was most strongly influenced by offense. The amount of the financial sanction was also significantly related to the type of crime. Controlling for individual attributes and offense, the odds of subsequent arrest and incarceration were significantly less for those given a financial penalty than for those receiving a jail sentence.
Translating Legal Language and Comparative Law
Legal texts are in the focus of both lawyers and translators. This paper discusses the binary opposition of these two views especially in the light of contract law. There is one crucial epistemic difference between the point of view of the translator and the lawyer when it comes to the interpretation of legal texts. In the translator’s view legal text is traditionally conceived as static as to its nature; something that already exists in the form of text. Traditionally, the translator is interested in the text itself as it was written down in a document, i.e. the translator needs to go back to the frozen moment when a legal document was constructed and finalised. The lawyer, in contrast, is very much interested not only in the text of the legal document but also in the contextual surroundings of the text. In fact, for legal interpretation, sometimes the key-elements for the interpretation come from outside of the text itself. This paper concludes that legal translation is in many cases closer to transcreation than it is to traditionally understood translation.