Secondly, there is an individual deterrence in which courts and other law practitioners get certain guidance as to how to deal with the first-time criminals or may be how to carry about sanctions on individual cases so that they deter from the act. Another form of deterrence is absolute deterrence when the threat and the punishment happen to a person who is close to the offender, and thus, he realizes that the same could also happen to him and his family and finally deters. The final form is of restrictive deterrence, when the offender commits one type of sin and refrains from it the next time while, experimenting other misdeeds in subsequent happenings.
Deterrence theories offer certain assumptions regarding the implications that the legal/formal and informal controls might have their impacts on further involvement of the convicted persons in other criminal activities (Lebow & Stein, 1989). They say that if control of either type is exercised, it would reduce the number of criminal activities by the person in future. However, studies conducted at different places reflected quite a contradictory picture revealing that control, in the form of arrest, has no effect in the rate of crime pertained to domestic violence (Sherman, Smith, Schmidt & Rogan, 1992).
Such a collective impact of the two controls are marked under the category of general deterrence, however, the function of informal control would be discussed under the category of specific deterrence and their hypotheses are discussed respectively.
As discussed above, the general deterrence model incorporates the interface of both types of threats and the nature and extent of punishment that they include. There are mainly three hypotheses that come under this category, as elaborated below:
This particular hypothesis advocates that when the offender is more concerned and tied to the societal norms and values, only then, the legal threats in the