Punishment and deterrence: A comment on South (1998)

South's (1998) paper extends discussion on an important social policy issue . Given that Australian Psychological Society position papers are designed to draw out policy implications from well-established psychological knowled ge, his criticism of the failure of the position paper on punishment and be haviour change to cover evidence from other disciplines is inappropriate. H owever, we agree that psychology has much to gain from interdisciplinary co ntact. We endorse his call for psychology to become more involved in theory -building regarding general deterrence, but are sceptical about whether suc h a theory can have universal applicability. Driving offences, research on which forms the basis for South's proposals, differ substantially from othe r types of offenses such that deterrence requirements are also likely to di ffer. The effectiveness of specific deterrents and rehabilitation will vary by type of offence, offender and program, and they should not be dismissed outright as cost-ineffective. Psychology could become more involved in the se and related arenas, and particularly also in their evaluation. We hope S outh's paper will encourage more psychologists to take up these challenging issues.