Abstract
Extant literature distinguishes the processes of deterrence by referencing two distinct populations, either the general public or the punished offender. Stafford and Warr (1993), however, assert that these distinctions limit the various experiences individuals may have within these populations. To claim that one’s direct and indirect experiences with punishment is the only relevant consideration in predicting their future behavior is to ignore the potential effects of direct and indirect experiences with punishment avoidance. As such, punishment avoidance should be considered analytically distinct from the other two processes of deterrence, as individuals may be fused between both types of experiences. With this implementation, general and specific deterrence within the traditional deterrence theory become conceptually problematic and restrictive in both practice and when measuring deterrence. Punishment avoidance expands the reconceptualized deterrence theory into four relevant experiences that any individual may have. A such, this study utilized the criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol to measure the significance of the punishment avoidance inclusion into the reconceptualized deterrence theory.