Rising crime rates and growing concern for public safety have been the catalyst for increases in statutory regulation of the sentencing process. Based upon deterrence propositions of severe, certain, and celerious punishment, state after state has recently established standards or guidelines governing decisions on the minimal punishment of offenders.
Thus far, researchers have utilized a wide variety of methodologies to assess the nature and extent of deterrence variables. However, the research has yet to sufficiently answer the questions concerning the efficacy of penal sanctions and their deterrent capabilities. Utilizing a quasi-experimental design, this stuudy assesses the deterrent capabilities of statutes which mandate mandatory minimum sentences for individuals convicted of possession or use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
Data from 1970 through 1980, consisting of individual state Uniform Crime Report arrest statistics for the crimes of robbery and aggravated assault, are used in the analysis. If this form of sentencing legislation is to be considered effective, then corresponding reductions in the use or possession of firearms during the commission of the enumerated felonies should follow their enactment.
Findings indicated that momentary reductions in firearm usage were observed for states initiating mandatory minimum sentences. However, the reductions do not appear to be due to the deterrent effects of the mandatory sentencing statutes. Control states without such statutes experience similar declining trends during the same period.