About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


39 Just. Q. 1 (2022)

handle is hein.journals/jquart39 and id is 1 raw text is: JUSTICE QUARTERLY 2022, VOL. 39, NO. 1, 1-25 Routledge https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1709884 Taylor & Francis Group Morality, Deterrability, and Offender Decision Making Shaina Herman and Greg Pogarsky School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, New York, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Deterrence describes a process in which perceived risks and rewards Received 23 May 2019 influence offending decisions, whereas deterrability refers to the cap- Accepted 20 December 2019 acity or inclination to engage in this process. There are alternative forms of undeterrability. Incorrigible individuals offend regardless of KEYWORDS how high the potential legal costs are and acute conformists refrain Moral identity; moral from crime regardless of how low the potential legal costs are. attitudes; acute conformity; Using data from a nationwide survey of Americans (n 955), the decision-making current study distinguishes two manifestations of morality hypothe- sized to underlie acute conformity. Results suggest that people's moral identity, which reflects their degree of commitment to ethical and prosocial ideals, informs their specific moral attitudes, or apprais- als of the wrongfulness of particular behaviors. These constructs operate in tandem to produce acute conformity. Additionally, moral attitudes are found to vary by behavior resulting in within person heterogeneity in the acute conformity characterization. We discuss our findings as it relates to theoretical advancement of deterrability and policy that promotes conformity. Introduction In advancing control theory, Hirschi (1969) argued that the pertinent question for criminologists is not why people commit crime, but rather, why they do not. One reason people refrain from crime is to avoid legal punishments. But individuals differ in their capacity for deterrence by legal sanctions, a principle known as differential deterr- ability (Jacobs, 2010; Loughran, Piquero, Fagan, & Mulvey, 2012; Piquero, Paternoster, Pogarsky, & Loughran, 2011). Pogarsky (2002) suggested there are three distinct forms of sensitivity to legal sanction threats. There are incorrigible individuals who will offend regardless of how high the potential legal costs are. Acute conformists refrain from crime regardless of how low the potential legal costs are. Though for different reasons, each group is undeterrable by legal sanction threats. The remaining group is deterrable. Extralegal conformity should be of continuing interest to crime scholars given the widespread rejection of monolithic, punishment-centered policies that are characteris- tic of mass incarceration. Here we investigate several aspects of acute conformity, including its prevalence, consistency across offenses, and correspondence with two distinct forms of morality. People have a moral identity, which reflects their overall CONTACT Shaina Herman sherman@albany.edu C 2020 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences