Talk:Deterrence (penology)

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Defense

If there is a section regarding criticism of the practice of deterrence, there should also be a section about defense of deterrence. Otherwise, this article is heavily POV. 63.226.175.120 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --72.241.86.106 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owning guns to deter crime

Within the context of "legal deterrence", why is there text in this article about the benefits of owning guns to deter crime? 85.229.249.4 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The proposal is to merge the two articles Deterrence (legal) and Deterrence (psychology). The rationale is that they appear to treat the same concept and have a substantial overlap in content. (Perhaps a serious encyclopedia article can be written about a psychological theory of deterrence without tying it so strongly to legal punishment as a deterrence to crime, but in that case the authors of that putative article will basically have to start over.) --Lambiam 18:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. I could easily see room for an article on the psychological aspects of deterrence, but that's not what Deterrence (psychology) is right now. I'm not sure how I feel about effectively salting that space by making that article into a redirect, but I don't see a better option. Sneftel (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After merging, the best option would be, in my opinion, to make Deterrence (psychology) redirect to Deterrence theory (which already has a hatnote referring to Deterrence (legal)). The book Psychology and Deterrence by Jervis, Lebow & Stein – cited by hundreds of scholarly publications – is all about deterrence theory: the theory behind deterrence as a military strategy and a foreign-policy tool. --Lambiam

Also, redirect pages are not saltier than other pages. For example, here I turned a redirect into a dab page. There will be no particular impediment for a prospective author to turning a redirect into a regular article, as happens all the time to "redirects with possibilities". --Lambiam 21:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Sorry, I misunderstood you, I would support blanking the psychology article and redirecting, I don't see any content that needs to merge into this relatively well-written article that uses inline citation style. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the objection. Merging does not have to mean the text of one article is copied wholesale into the other. A merger can also be selective. Are you saying there is no content worth preserving? --Lambiam 11:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the History section more carefully, and while its relatively well-written, some parts of the history section warrant closer scrutiny — the majority of this section was added by ip editors, presumably unsourced: [1] — some of this looks ok, but some of the changes look dubious. This could be used as a general reference to add some of the major points into the other article (with inline citations out of respect for the consistent style of the article), in lieu of directly merging. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some of it looks dubious and may be original research and/or pov editing. Isn't that best dealt with for now with some tagging, like {{citation needed}} and such? The issues are there, with or without merger. --Lambiam 11:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the content about General/Specific deterrence already seems to be covered. If anything, the history section should be left out of the merger. I don't expect we will ever find a citation for “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” guideline, although later Christians interpreted this literally, emphasizing compassion and tolerance rather than punishment or some of the other content that was added. Maybe the part about Betham and Beccaria could be tagged. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the only unique material at Deterrence (psychology) related to philosophy and religion (no psychology). I've generous merged it, adding relevant wikilinks rather than references. I'm relaxed about the ultimate target. Klbrain (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Research

Detterence of criminals 119.93.198.195 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Deterrence (legal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Deterrence (legal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Deterrence (legal until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]