Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories Few traditional theories see crime as a choice rather they see criminal behavior determined by a variety of individual and social factors These theories are deterministic theories and have dominated theory since the late 1800s ID: 417787
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Reviving Classical Theory: Deterrence an..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Reviving Classical Theory: Deterrence and Rational Choice TheoriesSlide2
Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories
Few traditional theories see crime as a choice; rather, they see criminal behavior determined by a variety of individual and social factors
These theories are deterministic theories and have dominated theory since the late 1800s
Those theories that see crime as a choice are called classical theories
Dominated theory during the late 1700s and much of the 1800sArgue that individuals choose to engage in crime based on a rational consideration of the costs and benefits associated with crimeEngage in crime when they believe crime maximizes their net benefitsSlide3
Deterrence Theory
Argues that people are rational and pursue their own interests, attempting to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain
Engage in crime if they believe it is to their advantage
To prevent crime, have swift, certain, and severe punishments, with a focus primarily on official punishments
Deterrence occurs when someone refrains from committing a crime because he/she fears the certainty, swiftness, and/or severity of formal legal punishmentsSlide4
Deterrence Theory
Became popular in the
1970s
with Gary Becker’s work
Has had an enormous impact on contemporary crime control policies The U.S. criminal justice system has largely abandoned rehabilitation as a crime control strategyInstead, the CJS focuses on increasing the certainty and severity of punishmentExamples: Three-strikes laws and juvenile waiversRate of imprisonment has increased fivefold from 1970s to early 2000sSlide5
Deterrence Theory
Deterrence theory distinguishes between two types of deterrence
Specific deterrence
General deterrenceSlide6
Specific Deterrence
Specific deterrence refers to the idea that punishment reduces the crime of those specific people who are punished
Evidence has shown that more severe punishments are no more effective at reducing crime than less severe punishments
Some studies found more severe punishments may increase the likelihood of subsequent crime
Evidence has shown that increasing the swiftness/celerity of punishments does not reduce subsequent offendingSlide7
Specific Deterrence
Few studies have tried to determine whether people punished by the justice system are less likely to engage in crime than comparable people not punished
Results of these studies are mixed but tend to suggest that the arrested/convicted people do not have lower rates of subsequent crime
Some studies show those punished have
higher rates of crimeSlide8
Specific Deterrence
Why would punishment not deter people from future crime?
Many offenders may not be that rational
Instead, they are often impulsive and high in negative emotionality
Many are pressured into crime due to strains and delinquent associationsPunishment may increase strains, reduce social control, and increase the social learning of crimeHave problems finding work or become labeled
The justice system does not punish in an effective way
The likelihood of punishment is low (certainty is low)Slide9
Specific Deterrence
Some argue the effect of punishment on crime depends on the nature of the punishment and who is punished
Braithwaite argues punishments that isolate people from society increase future crime, while punishments that are reintegrative decrease future crime
Sherman argues that the effect of punishments are dependent on the extent to which punishments are administered in a fair and respectful manner Slide10
Specific Deterrence
Some research has focused on the characteristics of the people who are punished
Some argue that punishments are most effective for those who are strongly committed to conformity, have high self-control, are strongly bonded through good jobs and close family ties, and have beliefs that crime is wrong
Others argue that individuals strongly committed to conformity are likely to refrain from crime regardless of whether they are punished or not, and punishment is only effective for those who are strongly disposed to crime (e.g., have low self-control)
Finally, others argue that punishments are most effective for those who are neither strongly committed to crime nor conformity There is evidence for all of these arguments, especially the argument that punishment deters best among those who are strongly disposed to crimeSlide11
Specific Deterrence
Overall, when the justice system punishes someone or punishes them more severely, that does not reduce their subsequent crime
But it is probably the case that some people reduce crime in response to punishment, while others increase their crime after punishmentSlide12
General Deterrence
General deterrence refers to the idea that punishment deters crime among people in the general population
Punishment deters crime among those not punished
Numerous studies have tried to determine if there is a general deterrent effect
Want to see if increasing the certainty and severity of punishment reduces crime in the general populationExamine the impact of arrest rates, average length of prison sentence served, police crackdowns, etc.Slide13
General Deterrence
Studies have been criticized because they often assume people are aware of the certainty or severity of punishment in the area in which they live
This assumption is often wrong
People who are law-abiding often overestimate the certainty and severity of punishment
Results from the research show:Increasing the certainty of punishment may reduce a moderate amount of crimeChanges in the level of severity have little or no effect on crimeSlide14
General Deterrence
When the certainty of punishment reduces subsequent crime, it is often short-lived and confined to a specific area
Punishments administered outside one’s area have little effect on current crime
The certainty of punishment must be 20 percent or more to have a deterrent effect
General deterrence programs may work with certain people in some circumstances, particularly among people disposed to crimeThese programs clearly show certainty has been increased and closely monitor the offending behavior of those in the targeted group and consistently sanction infractionsSlide15
Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory”
Mark Stafford and Mark
Warr
argue that deterrence researchers usually focus either on specific (e.g., direct experiences with punishment)
or general deterrence (e.g., indirect experiences with punishment)Researchers show little concern with experiences of punishment avoidance Do not ask whether individuals have committed crime for which they have not been punished or whether they are aware of others who have committed crimes for which they have not been punishedArgue people have a mixture of direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance Slide16
Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory”
Contend studies on deterrence need to examine whether individuals:
Have been punished for any crime they have committed (direct experience with punishment—specific deterrence)
Are aware of others who have been punished for their crimes (indirect experience with punishment—general deterrence)
Have avoided punishment for crimes they have committed (direct experience with punishment avoidance—specific deterrence)Are aware of others who have avoided punishment for their crimes (indirect experience with punishment avoidance—general deterrence)Slide17
Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory”
Most studies on deterrence fail to take into account all four factors and instead focus only on general (indirect experience with punishment)
or
specific (direct experience with punishment) deterrence
Recognize that both general and specific deterrence can operate for a given personSee general and specific deterrence on a continuum Treat punishment avoidance as distinct from the experience of suffering a punishmentSlide18
Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory”
Punishment avoidance (committing a crime and not being caught/punished) is likely to affect perceptions of certainty and severity of punishment
Refers to events that did not happen
If often avoid punishment, may view self as immune from punishment and increase criminal behavior
After criminal behavior, punishment or punishment avoidance will occurSlide19
Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory”
The reconceptualization of deterrence theory is compatible with contemporary learning theory, especially the distinction of observational and vicarious learning and experiential learning
Overall, Stafford and Warr contend that it is unnecessary to formulate separate theories of general and specific deterrence
However, this is hard to test
Need data on:People’s perceptions of their own certainty and severity of legal punishment for crimesPeople’s perceptions of the certainty and severity of legal punishment for othersSelf-reported criminal behaviorEstimates of peers’ criminal behaviorSlide20
Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory”
Stafford and Warr’s reconcepualization has not been extensively tested
The data are not available
However, preliminary tests have been generally supportive
Direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance have been shown to influence the perceived certainty of punishment and levels of offendingHowever, the effects are not always in the direction predictedDirect experience with punishment often decreases the perceived certainty of punishment and increases the likelihood of subsequent offendingSlide21
Rational Choice Theory
Assumes offenders are rational people who seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain
Focuses on offenders as rational decision makers calculating where their self-interest lies
Focuses on the choice to engage in crime
Cornish and Clarke developed their version of rational choice theory in the mid-1980sSlide22
Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice”
Do not assume that people are perfectly or fully rational
Rationality is constrained by the limits of time and ability and the availability of relevant information
Call this
bounded rationalityDraw heavily on existing theories when determining what impacts rationalitySelf-control, moral beliefs, strains, emotional states, associations with delinquent peers, etc.Slide23
Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice”
The costs of crime include both formal and informal sanctions and “moral costs”
Formal—legal criminal justice punishments
Informal—disapproval from parents, friends, etc.
Moral costs—guilt and shame that one experiencesDeterrence theories focus mainly on formal sanctionsRational choice theories also recognize the estimation of benefits more than deterrence theoriesSlide24
Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice”
Devote much attention to factors that constrain choice
Include variables from other theories and the extent to which individuals have been reinforced and punished for crime
Could be viewed as a form of integrated theory because it draws on the leading crime theories in order to specify the costs and benefits associated with crimeSlide25
Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice”
Argue that it is necessary to adopt a “crime specific focus”
Should focus on particular types of crime rather than examining all crime in general
The costs and benefits associated with different crimes vary
Argue a complete explanation of crime must distinguish between “criminal involvement” and “criminal events”Criminal involvement—deals with the decision to become involved in crimeInitial involvement model—heavily influenced by previous learning and experience over substantial periods of time which are influenced by background factors (e.g., individual traits and social and demographic characteristics)
Criminal events—deal with the decision to commit specific criminal acts
Criminal event model—heavily influenced by the immediate situation and the selection of a target based on costs and benefits
Most crime theories focus on criminal involvementSlide26
Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice”
Reevaluations may lead to desistence
Two classes of variables are seen to have a cumulative effect
Life-events (e.g., marriage)
Those more directly related to the criminal eventSlide27
Rational Choice Theory Criticisms
Several scholars have challenged rational choice theory
Criminals often commit crime with little planning and little consideration for costs and benefits and not in their self-interest
They act impulsively
However, Cornish and Clarke argue that even impulsive acts reveal some consideration for the costs and benefits of the actSlide28
Rational Choice Theory
A number of studies have examined whether people’s estimates of the costs and benefits of crime influence their offending
Have examined the impact of formal, informal, and moral costs of crime as well as the benefits
Most studies find that crime is more likely when its costs are seen as low and its benefits as high
But other factors come into play as well Emotions, intoxication, self-control, etc.Slide29
Rational Choice Theory
Not as different from leading crime theories as may first appear
May be viewed as an integrated theory because it draws on leading crime theories to fully specify the costs and benefits associated with crime
Complete explanation of crime must distinguish between criminal involvement (decision to become involved in crime) and criminal events (decision to commit specific criminal acts)
Most theories focus on criminal involvementSlide30
Rational Choice Theory: Criminal Events
Criminal events deal with immediate circumstances and situation of the individual
Factors that offenders when considering committing a particular crime
Crime-specific focus because costs/benefits vary by type of crime
One example is Wright and Decker’s study on 86 armed robbersSlide31
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Armed robbery most often is defined as the use of a weapon to take property by force or threat of force
Asks how does one decide to commit armed robbery? What does it feel like? Who do they target? How do they get people to obey their commands? Slide32
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Conducted a study with 86 current armed robbers in St. Louis focused on their thoughts and actions during a robbery
Semi-structured interviews
Overwhelming a black and poor sample, with males and females, adults and juveniles, successful and unsuccessful, experienced and inexperienced, and high and low rate offendersSlide33
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Decision to commit arises in the face of what offenders perceive to be a pressing need for cash (80 of 81 offenders who discussed motivation said this)
Money to satisfy an immediate need; day-to-day survival
Frequency of robberies tied to amount of money they had an their inability to meet current expensesSlide34
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Some committed robberies even if had enough money at the time because the opportunity was too good to pass up
Most spent their money on desperate partying
Pursued open-ended quest for excitement such as gambling, drug use, and heavy drinking
This is often due to their attachment to the street culture (good times with little concern for obligations and commitments beyond the immediate situation) and little regard to future planningEven when had substantial amount of money, spent it recklessly and thus under pressure to generate more fundsSlide35
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Some purchased “status enhancing” items
Clothing to project a desired image
Others purchased daily living expenses such as food, shelter, and childcare items
Most spent most on drugs and alcohol and the rest of the money left over to meet necessary expensesSlide36
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
The decision to commit robbery was generally motivated by the need for money
Legitimate employment does not represent a realistic solution
Immediacy of the need for cash rules out employment
Jobs available often pay wages that fall short of what is needed to support their lifestyleThought that a job would “cramp their lifestyle”Slide37
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Many seek to maintain a conspicuous display of independence and do as one pleases (part of street culture)
Legitimate employment hinders that display
25 of 75 unemployed subjects, however, stated they would stop committing offenses if someone gave them a good jobSlide38
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
However, even if given a well-paying job, doubtful many would keep it for long
Street culture with its drug use often undermines work
Also borrowing from a friend/relative often is not feasible
Exhausted patience of others making them unwilling to lend moneyOnly a short-term solution as wellSlide39
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
When confronted with an immediate need for cash, robbers perceive little hope of getting cash quickly and legitimately
Many came to robbery through burglary and/or drug selling
Robbery took less time than burglary and selling drugs and netted cash rather than goodsSlide40
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
When selecting a target, they face two competing demands: 1) immediate action and 2) caution in selection of target
Roughly 60% preyed on individuals who were involved in crime themselves because unlikely to be reported
Often young, street-level drug dealers who sold small amounts of crack cocaine (could get drugs and money)
Few robbed major drug suppliersSlide41
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
30 of the robbers routinely targeted law-abiding citizens
Seen as less dangerous than robbing other criminalsSlide42
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
When searching for a target, robbers had to make two decisions:
Suitable area
Based on physical (e.g., access to car) and psychological barriers (e.g., fear of unknown areas)
Resulted in staying within the citySporting venues and entertainment districts brought more affluent targetsSpecific victimAppeared to have substantial cash (clothes, jewelry)Often go after those at ATM stationsPrefer whites who are perceived to less likely to resistSlide43
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
After selecting target, must commit offense
Two methods to approach victim
Stealth or speed to sneak up
Lurk in background and strike out of nowhere so little chance of evasive actionManage a normal appearance Fit into the social setting to get close enough for a surprise actionSlide44
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Another manner to approach targets involves a female accomplice
Used in small time jewelry store robbery
Creates a nonthreatening imageSlide45
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Must keep victim under control while confiscating everything worth taking
Must be done quickly as risk of detection increases with time
Used two strategies
Simply ordering victims to hand over possessionsTaking possessions without waiting for what was offeredMany preferred this for fear the victim had a concealed weaponSlide46
Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action
Employed various methods to mentally handle the prospect of getting caught so it did not inhibit their ability to offend
Used cognitive techniques to neutralize the capacity of threatened sanctions to deter an intended offense
Often refused to dwell on chance of being caught while committing the offense
Facilitated by being in a state of emotional desperation at the time of the offenseSlide47
Summary
Deterrence and rational choice theories assume people are rational and weigh the costs and benefits of crime
Deterrence theory makes a distinction between general and specific deterrence
Stafford and
Warr reconceptualize deterrence theory focusing both on general and specific deterrence and on punishment avoidanceCornish and Clarke developed rational choice theory taking into account the bounded rationality of individualsRational choice theories focus on the specific nature of the crime as shown by Wright and Decker