The Rational Offender The Classical School Deterrence Theory

The Rational Offender The “Classical School” Deterrence Theory Rational Choice Theory Routine Activities Theory

Social Context of the “Classical” School n Prior to the 1700 s q n “The devil made me do it” Punishments/justice system?

Social Context II n Classical School Criminology (1700 s-1800 s) q n Bentham, Beccaria, others rail against an “inhumane” justice system Along the way, they articule a “general theory” of human behavior q Borrow heavily from Thomas Hobbes

Becarria n An Essay on Crimes and Punishment (1764) q On the origin of punishment (Hobbes) n n q What is the nature of human beings? “War of all against all” What should be done to the system of laws? n n Interpretation of Laws Obscurity of Laws

Beccaria II n What is the purpose of punishment? q n “Prevent the criminal from doing further injury to society, and to prevent others from committing the like offense. ” Necessary conditions for this? q q q Proportion between crimes and punishment Advantage of immediate punishment Certainty more important than severity

The Classical School Fades n n By the early 1900 s, most dismissed this as a valid theory of criminal behavior What emerged is called the “Positive school” q q q n Changes in legal system didn’t lower crime rates “Armchair theorizing” questioned Humans as “determined” rather than “rational” From early 1900 s until the 1970 s, the positive school was unchallenged q Sociology was dominant force (search for root cause)

Rebirth of Deterrence n n Social Context of U. S. in the 1970 s James Q Wilson, Thinking About Crime q n Martinson q n “Nothing Works” in rehabilitation Murray q n There are no “root causes of crime” “Punishment Programs” rather than rehab programs Economists enter Criminology q Becker’s “Rational Choice” article

Current Neo-classical Theories n Deterrence theory q q n Rational Choice theory q q n Swift, certain, severe punishment reduces crime Focus on formal punishment Focus on how rational offender is The “flip-side” of deterrence Routine activity theory

Deterrence Theory Assumptions 1. Humans are Rational (cost/benefit) 2. Humans are self-interested and hedonistic 3. Human behavior can be controlled through certain, swift, severe punishment

Deterrence Theory n Criminal behavior (or crime rates) vary directly with _______ of FORMAL punishment. q q q n n Certainty Severity Swiftness MICRO or MACRO? Specific or General

Marginal versus Absolute n Absolute deterrence: the existence of formal punishment reduces crime n Marginal: increases in existing formal punishment reduces crime further

General Deterrence (Macro) n n What should reduce crime rates? Evidence: q Severity of Punishment n q Certainty of Punishment n q Death Penalty Research Experiments in Certainty (KC patrol) Swiftness of Punishment?

General Deterrence Micro Level n An individuals perceptions of _______ influence their decision to commit crimes. q n “Perceptual Deterrence” Criticism of “objective” = do people really know the clearance rate? q Better: what do you think the clearance rate is?

Perceptual Deterrence Research Initial cross sectional studies: Perceived risk, severity SR crime n q q But, what is the causal order? ? “Experiential” effect SR crime n perceptions or certainty/risk Manipulation of Perceived Risk q Scared Straight

Specific Deterrence n A person who commits a crime and is punished is less likely to commit additional crimes. q n Swift, Certain, Severe (Marginal) How test these propositions?

Testing Specific Deterrence n Prison vs. Probation? q n Perhaps, “time in prison” or “type of prison” More realistically q q q Probation vs. Intensive Probation vs. Boot Camp Sherriff Joe’s pink underwear tent camp study

Larry Sherman’s Domestic Violence Experiments q Random assignment of police response to D. V. n n n q Counsel Separate Arrest Minneapolis results = very positive (arrest decreases crime) n n Leads to “Mandatory Arrest” BUT….

Sherman Experiments II n Replication in Milwaukee q q q Arrest increases future D. V. Re-analysis of data—different effects depending upon whether individuals were employed Similar results from other D. V. experiments n WHY? Formal Sanctions may “Activate” Informal Sanctions (fear of job loss, fear of disapproval)

Deterrence Review: n Deals only with formal legal sanctions. q q n Is this fair? Classical school roots, policy implications Empirical Support? q General Deterrence n n q Macro Micro (Perceptual) Specific Deterrence

Why little support for deterrence? n n We can’t get certain, severe, swift enough The theory is based on bad assumptions q q n How rational are we? Equality of opportunity, pleasure, pain? “Marginal” deterrence

POLICY IMPLICATIONS n n n General Deterrence: certain, swift, and severe punishment reduces crime rates, or the probability that an individual will offend Specific Deterrence: CS&S punishment reduces recidivism Can’t/Won’t make sentences swift, certain, and severe enough? q Incapacitate