Deterrence Certainty of Punishment Will the offender be

Deterrence

Certainty of Punishment • Will the offender be punished? • Does the offender believe he or she will be punished? • Usually measured by looking at arrest rates — the number of offenses known to the police that result in arrest • Usually states are compared (most felonies are state crimes) • Sometimes cities or counties are compared • If the arrest rate for a crime is higher in CO than, say, NE, then the certainty of punishment is higher. So do fewer people engage in that crime in CO?

Severity of Punishment • How strong/severe will the punishment be? • Does the offender believe that the punishment will be severe? • Usually measured as the average length of prison sentence served for various crimes • Again, states are compared, but sometimes cities or counties • If the average prison sentence served for a crime in CO is 8 years, but in NE it’s 5 years, then CO has a higher severity of punishment? Does this lead to fewer occurrences of that crime in CO?

Celerity of Punishment • Big word that just means “swiftness” • How quickly will the punishment be administered? • Psychological studies of animals suggest that celerity of punishment reduces subsequent behavior • And that longer times between action and punishment do not reduce subsequent behavior • Studies of humans do not show similar results • Humans have a greater capacity for “temporally remote consequences” (we remember better).

Deterrence Theory • Reflects Classical Theory (Beccaria) • People are rational (make decisions based on logic) • Will engage in behavior that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. • If the “pleasure” is criminal, it can be reduced by maximizing pain (punishment) • Certain • Swift • Appropriately severe

Deterrence Theory (cont. ) • Gained prominence in criminology in the 1970 s • Gary Becker (economist) published on humans’ rational decisions for participating in criminal behavior • Is the basis for the shift in the 1970 s and 80 s from a justice system that attempts rehabilitation to one that focuses on punishment • In the 1980 s, many states passed “three strikes and your out” laws • Intended not only to punish, but to alert the public that ongoing criminal behavior will not be tolerated

Specific Deterrence • Does punishment prevent individual offenders from committing future crimes? (Recidivism) • Most studies have found that more severe punishments are no more effective at reducing recidivism • Indeed, more severe punishments may increase the likelihood of future offending? • Why might this be true?

Specific Deterrence (cont. ) • What about comparing those who have been punished with those who have not been punished? • Both groups of people have committed the same or similar crimes • Some have been caught and punished; some have been caught, but not punished; some have never been caught but report having committed the crime • Both are comparable on race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status • Research is mixed. Generally, those who have been arrested and convicted do not have lower rates of subsequent crime.

Specific Deterrence (cont. ) • In general, specific deterrence does not work, but this may depend on • The Nature of the Punishment • Think Braithwaite and reintegrative shaming versus stigmatizing shaming • Who is Punished • Some individuals respond positively to punishment (less recidivism) while others respond negatively (more recidivism), e. g. , if they have a high stake in conformity • But other researchers argue that those with a high stake in conformity wouldn’t commit such crimes in the first place

General Deterrence • Does the existence of punishment prevent the general public from engaging in criminal behavior? • Certainty and Severity of punishment are key here • Most people have little knowledge of the actual certainty of punishment by the justice system or the severity of penalties. Most overestimate both. • Does the public believe that punishment is certain and will be severe?

General Deterrence • Research shows that the knowledge or belief of certainty of punishment can have a deterrent effect • But the effect is not as strong as the effects of • The individual’s beliefs regarding crime • Stake in conformity • Informal sanctions from friends and family members • Has the strongest effect when punishment is swift and administered inside the community • Knowledge of belief of severity of punishment has shown no real deterrent effect

Wait a Minute! • Mark Stafford and Mark Warr published “A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence” in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency in 1993 • Stated that deterrence happens because of a mixture of personal and vicarious experiences with punishment and with the avoidance of punishment

Stafford and Warr Direct and Indirect Punishment Direct and Indirect Avoidance of Punishment • Direct: have been punished for any crimes in which the offender has participated • Direct: have avoided punishment for any crimes they have committed • Indirect: are aware of others who have been punished for their (the others’) crimes • Indirect: are aware of others who have avoided punishment for their (the others’) crimes

Stafford and Warr (cont. ) • Broke down the previously-adhered-to boundaries between specific deterrence and general deterrence • In short, they said that deterrence is both specific and general and comes from your own experiences as well as the experiences of others that you know about

Stafford and Warr (cont. ) • Could help policy makers develop deterrence policies that are specific to specific crimes • If fewer people avoid punishment, deterrence may increase • If the public is made aware that fewer people are avoiding punishment, deterrence may increase • If the public is made aware that specific crimes have specific punishments, deterrence may increase • The key is: direct and indirect knowledge of punishment and (lack of) avoidance are all necessary

Rational Choice Theory

Emphasis on Rational • Rational choice theory — like classical and deterrence theories — states that individuals seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. • Engage in behavior when benefits outweigh costs • BUT, rationality does not always have to be a conscious decision-making process…

Contrast with Altruism • Rational choice theorists say there’s no such thing as pure altruism • Nobody does anything strictly out of the goodness of their heart • “It’s the right thing to do” — makes one feel better about him-/herself • “It’s wrong or immoral” — minimizes chances of punishment or informal sanctions by others • “The Bible says to do so” — maximizes chance of reaching the afterlife • Similar principles in all major religious texts with a discussion of the afterlife

Rational Choice in Criminology • Primarily the work of Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish • Published “Modeling Offenders’ Decisions: A framework for research and policy” in 1985 • Published “Rational Choice” in 2001 Explaining Criminals and Crime • They do not assume that people are perfectly rational, carefully calculating and weighing expected benefits and costs of potential crimes…

Limited/Bounded Rationality • Instead of perfect rationality, Clarke and Cornish speak of “limited” or “bounded” rationality • Some consideration of costs and benefits • But the consideration is often rushed or based on incomplete information

Broadly-defined Benefits and Costs • Clarke and Cornish define the benefits and costs of crime broadly • Benefits • • • Monetary gain Status/respect Thrills/excitement • Costs • Formal sanctions, yes (arrest, trial, punishment) • Information sanctions, too • Disapproval of family/friends • Guilt • Shame

So… • Clarke and Cornish’s work draws heavily on theories (and mechanisms) we’ve already studied • • • Individual’s level of self-control Moral beliefs Strain Emotional state Associations with delinquent peers

Challenges to Rational Choice • A long list of theorists have challenged rational choice theory • Offenders often commit crimes with little consideration of consequences or costs and benefits • • • Act impulsively Under the influence of drugs/alcohol Under pressure from others

Rational Choice Responds • “Offenders often commit crimes with little consideration of consequences or costs and benefits” • Act impulsively • The benefit is that the impulsive need is satisfied • Under the influence of drugs/alcohol • Satisfying a further need for drugs • Satisfying a visceral need for violence or retribution • Under pressure from others • Getting others to back off* • * Remember, this is one type of Differential Reinforcement (Social Learning Theory) — the removal of a negative stimulus

Akers Responds • In 1990, Ronald Akers published “Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory: The path not taken” in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology • Rational choice is not all that different from the other major criminological theories • Rational choice theorists focus on choice AND on those factors that constrain choice • Individual traits • Attitudes toward crime/Beliefs favorable toward crime • The extent to which individuals have been reinforced or punished for crime (à la social learning theory)

Rational Choice Theorists Specify • Rational choice theorists have responded to criticism such as Akers’ by making a distinction between • Criminal Involvement — the decision to participate in crime, generally speaking • Take a look at Figure 34. 1 (on p. 439 of the 5 th Edition of Cullen, Agnew & Wilcox) for the Initial Involvement Model • Criminal Events — the act of committing a particular crime • Why choose to commit this crime versus another? • Consider Phil Cresta’s decision-making processes in Final Confession

Focus on Specific Types of Crime • Rational choice theorists also specify that their theory’s focus should be on specific crimes rather than all crimes in general • E. g. , residential burglaries in middle-class suburbs • Bank robbery • Murder-for-hire?