REVIVING CLASSICAL THEORY DETERRENCE AND RATIONAL CHOICE THEORIES

  • Slides: 47
Download presentation
REVIVING CLASSICAL THEORY: DETERRENCE AND RATIONAL CHOICE THEORIES

REVIVING CLASSICAL THEORY: DETERRENCE AND RATIONAL CHOICE THEORIES

Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories • Few traditional theories see crime as a choice;

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 1800 s • Those theories that see crime as a choice are called classical theories • Dominated theory during the late 1700 s and much of the 1800 s • Argue that individuals choose to engage in crime based on a rational consideration of the costs and benefits associated with crime • Engage in crime when they believe crime maximizes their net benefits

Deterrence Theory • Argues that people are rational and pursue their own interests, attempting

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 punishments

Deterrence Theory • Became popular in the 1970 s with Gary Becker’s work •

Deterrence Theory • Became popular in the 1970 s 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 strategy • Instead, the CJS focuses on increasing the certainty and severity of punishment • Examples: Three-strikes laws and juvenile waivers • Rate of imprisonment has increased fivefold from 1970 s to early 2000 s

Deterrence Theory Deterrence theory distinguishes between two types of deterrence • 1. Specific deterrence

Deterrence Theory Deterrence theory distinguishes between two types of deterrence • 1. Specific deterrence 2. General deterrence

Specific Deterrence • Specific deterrence refers to the idea that punishment reduces the crime

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 offending

Specific Deterrence • Few studies have tried to determine whether people punished by the

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 crime

Specific Deterrence • Why would punishment not deter people from future crime? • Many

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 associations • Punishment may increase strains, reduce social control, and increase the social learning of crime • Have 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)

Specific Deterrence • Some argue the effect of punishment on crime depends on the

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

Specific Deterrence • Some research has focused on the characteristics of the people who

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 crime

Specific Deterrence • Overall, when the justice system punishes someone or punishes them more

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 punishment

General Deterrence • General deterrence refers to the idea that punishment deters crime among

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 population • Examine the impact of arrest rates, average length of prison sentence served, police crackdowns, etc.

General Deterrence • Studies have been criticized because they often assume people are aware

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 crime • Changes in the level of severity have little or no effect on crime

General Deterrence • When the certainty of punishment reduces subsequent crime, it is often

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 crime • These programs clearly show certainty has been increased and closely monitor the offending behavior of those in the targeted group and consistently sanction infractions

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” • Mark Stafford and Mark Warr argue that

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 punished • Argue people have a mixture of direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” Contend studies on deterrence need to examine whether

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” Contend studies on deterrence need to examine whether individuals: • 1. 2. 3. 4. 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)

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” • Most studies on deterrence fail to take

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 person • See general and specific deterrence on a continuum • Treat punishment avoidance as distinct from the experience of suffering a punishment

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” • Punishment avoidance (committing a crime and not

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 occur

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” • The reconceptualization of deterrence theory is compatible

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 crimes • People’s perceptions of the certainty and severity of legal punishment for others • Self-reported criminal behavior • Estimates of peers’ criminal behavior

Stafford and Warr: “Reconceptualizing Deterrence Theory” • Stafford and Warr’s reconcepualization has not been

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 offending • However, the effects are not always in the direction predicted • Direct experience with punishment often decreases the perceived certainty of punishment and increases the likelihood of subsequent offending

Rational Choice Theory • Assumes offenders are rational people who seek to maximize their

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-1980 s

Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice” • Do not assume that people

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 rationality • Draw heavily on existing theories when determining what impacts rationality • Self-control, moral beliefs, strains, emotional states, associations with delinquent peers, etc.

Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice” • The costs of crime include

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 experiences • Deterrence theories focus mainly on formal sanctions • Rational choice theories also recognize the estimation of benefits more than deterrence theories

Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice” • Devote much attention to factors

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 crime

Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice” • Argue that it is necessary

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 crime • Initial 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 involvement

Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice” Reevaluations may lead to desistence •

Cornish and Clarke: “Crime as a Rational Choice” Reevaluations may lead to desistence • • Two classes of variables are seen to have a cumulative effect 1. Life-events (e. g. , marriage) 2. Those more directly related to the criminal event

Rational Choice Theory Criticisms • Several scholars have challenged rational choice theory • Criminals

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 act

Rational Choice Theory • A number of studies have examined whether people’s estimates of

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.

Rational Choice Theory • Not as different from leading crime theories as may first

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 involvement

Rational Choice Theory: Criminal Events • Criminal events deal with immediate circumstances and situation

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 robbers

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Armed robbery most often is defined

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?

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Conducted a study with 86 current

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 offenders

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Decision to commit arises in the

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 expenses

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Some committed robberies even if had

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 planning • Even when had substantial amount of money, spent it recklessly and thus under pressure to generate more funds

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Some purchased “status enhancing” items •

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 expenses

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • The decision to commit robbery was

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 lifestyle • Thought that a job would “cramp their lifestyle”

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Many seek to maintain a conspicuous

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 job

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • However, even if given a well-paying

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 money • Only a short-term solution as well

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • When confronted with an immediate need

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 goods

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • When selecting a target, they face

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 suppliers

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • 30 of the robbers routinely targeted

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • 30 of the robbers routinely targeted law-abiding citizens • Seen as less dangerous than robbing other criminals

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • When searching for a target, robbers

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • When searching for a target, robbers had to make two decisions: Suitable area 1. • Based on physical (e. g. , access to car) and psychological barriers (e. g. , fear of unknown areas) • Resulted in staying within the city • Sporting venues and entertainment districts brought more affluent targets Specific victim 2. • Appeared to have substantial cash (clothes, jewelry) • Often go after those at ATM stations • Prefer whites who are perceived to less likely to resist

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • After selecting target, must commit offense

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • After selecting target, must commit offense • Two methods to approach victim Stealth or speed to sneak up 1. • Lurk in background and strike out of nowhere so little chance of evasive action Manage a normal appearance 2. • Fit into the social setting to get close enough for a surprise action

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Another manner to approach targets involves

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 image

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Must keep victim under control while

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 1. Simply ordering victims to hand over possessions 2. Taking possessions without waiting for what was offered • Many preferred this for fear the victim had a concealed weapon

Wright and Decker: Armed Robbers in Action • Employed various methods to mentally handle

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 offense

Summary • Deterrence and rational choice theories assume people are rational and weigh the

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 avoidance • Cornish and Clarke developed rational choice theory taking into account the bounded rationality of individuals • Rational choice theories focus on the specific nature of the crime as shown by Wright and Decker