Contemporary Research & Theory SOCI 4467 Contemporary Research & Theory Lecture #3 Classical and Neuve Classic Schools of Criminology: Deterrence, Rational Choice, and Situational Theories of Crime two basic schools of criminological theory: classical and positive classical school: Beccaria (1764) and Bentham (1789) - utilitarian philosophers

the impact of utilitarianism on social policy (later, J.S. Mill here) assumption of rationality, free will, free choice – the individual controls her/his own destiny crime is a conscious choice, a weighing out of rewards and costs therefore, to prevent crime, the costs must outweigh the benefits

specific versus general deterrence ‘absolute’ versus ‘restrictive’ deterrence note here: if the law is ineffective, what is the effect on deterrence, both general and specific (sic Durkheim – law and social equilibrium) Stafford and Warr (1993): the interplay between general and specific deterrence/ avoidance (what consequence for crime control?)

empirical research on deterrence: certainty, celerity are the key factors in effectiveness: not severity overall, not much evidence for the efficacy of deterrence the perception of punishment may be more important than the reality the element of police visibility as a factor in deterrence/crime prevention

 deterrence and imprisonment: real deterrence, or selective incapacitation? extensions of deterrence theory: inhibition and informal control of behaviour (shaming) the importance of social status? but for whom?

the Neuve classical school rational choice theory and routine activities theories Rational choice theory: Gary Becker (1968) choice uncertainty, and the subjective expected utility model (SEU) - also ‘bounded rationality’ and ‘human capital’

Routine Activities Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) assumes motivated offender, suitable target, absence of capable guardianship – but also rationality and an unexpected, ‘eventmental’ dimension

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria the classical school of criminology the Enlightenment (1725 - 1850) human logic & science, free will, and the social contract the ‘science of human society’ the birth of criminology Cesare Beccaria An Essay on Crimes and Punishments (1764)

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) man in the natural state: ‘nasty, brutish, short’ to paraphrase Hobbes (1651) the purpose of law to ameliorate the inequality and misery, to promote “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” influence of printing - and much progress has been made but: where the cruelty of punishments, and the ‘irregularity of proceedings in criminal cases’ are concerned, little attention paid here

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) “every act of authority of one man over another, for which there is not an absolute necessity, is tyrannical” the defense of the public liberty through reasonable punishment of the individual transgressor justice - the bond that is necessary to keep the interest of individuals united punishments not to exceed the necessity of preserving the bond

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) no punishment without a law that prescribes it punishment not to exceed what is prescribed by the law judges have no right to make, interpret law - this is the prerogative of legislators, and of the (sovereign) government laws and criminal code must be in a language easily understood by common people if they are to be expected to obey the law

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) a ‘scale of crimes’ must be constructed, from the most to least serious threat to the dissolution of society (public liberty) a ‘calculus’ relating punishments to crimes “pleasure and pain are the only springs of action in human beings endowed with sensibility”

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) “the end of punishment, therefore, is no other than to prevent the criminal from doing further injury to society, and to prevent others from committing the like offense” note - secret and false accusations - the necessity of an open, public criminal process torture - no one is guilty until proven so - what justification then for torture?

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) the degree of punishment, and the consequences of a crime, ought to be so contrived as to have the greatest possible effect on others, with the least possible pain to the delinquent. If there be any society in which this is a fundamental principle, it is an unlawful society; for mankind, by their union, originally intended to subject themselves to the least evils possible”

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) the advantages of immediate punishment - just in sparing the criminal uncertainty, and reduces privation of liberty pending final adjudication also certainty and severity as factors in punishment specific versus general deterrence the public punishment of small crimes will deter individuals from committing more serious crimes

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) the right to prepare a proper defense prevention better than prosecution - hence the paramount need for ‘good’ law - the need for education, to reward virtue the severity of punishments tied to the degree of social development?

2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria (cont’d) That a punishment may not be an act of violence of one, or of many, against a private member of society, it should be public, immediate, and necessary, the least possible in the case given, proportioned to the crime, and determined by the laws”

2. Lawrence Cohen & Marcus Felson - “A Routine ActivityApproach” (1979) (cont’d) influential in policing in terms of the ‘broken windows’ (Wilson & Kelling, 1982) theory of crime, also in terms of ‘ecological management’ and ‘target hardening’ approaches, especially victim awareness programs, crime prevention the police as guardians against ‘disorder’

focus on ‘direct-contact predatory’ types of crimes, where “someone definitely and intentionally takes or damages the person or property of another” - direct physical contact between offender and victim or object

changes in routine activities in society influence crime rates by affecting the convergence in space and time of the following three elements: 1. motivated offenders 2. suitable targets 3. the absence of capable guardians against a violation note: the case of population demographics, incident reporting and patrol deployment

“if the proportion of motivated offenders or even suitable targets were to remain stable in a community, changes in routine activities could nonetheless alter the likelihood of their convergence in space and time, thereby creating more opportunities for crimes to occur.” in short, structural changes in a society can alter the routine activities that people engage in, altering the relative probability of predatory crime

Hawley’s Human Ecological Theory and RAT: usually, criminologists concentrate on the spatial distribution of crime, not the temporal distribution Hawley identified three important temporal components of community structure: rhythm (periodicity of events) tempo (# events per unit of time) timing (coordination, synchronization of interdependent events)

the probability that a violation will occur is a function of the convergence of offenders and targets in the absence of guardianship, or: Pc = [ O * T] / AG illegal activities feed not from other illegal activities, but from legal activities; hence, points of juncture are at increased risk - hence, focus on routine activities, temporally and spatially

note the significance of urbanization and suburbanization, the automobile, electronic technology, computers, other technology, mass production of weaponry, store hours target suitability - value (materially, symbolically), physical visibility, access, inertia (weight, size, features, physical response of victim or target) e.g. teens and clothing

e.g. the proportion of individual households as predictive of crime rate employment or unemployment rates? FLFP and property crimes? school attendance and theft? impaired driving older offenders, older victims

3. Sherman & Berk: The Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault (ASR, 1984) conflicting demands/alternatives for police: forced separation mediation arrest randomized experiment conducted with Minneapolis Police Department simple misdemeanor domestic assaults

random selection of advice/mediation, separation, arrest strategies follow-up interviews with victims measurement of subsequent victimizations following the intervention both police-based and victim-based outcome measures employed

28.9% of suspects ‘failed’ within 6 mos: police-reported data indicate arrest most deterrent, followed by advice/mediation, separation victim-reported data showed arrest most deterrent, followed by separation, advice/mediation

4. Rational Choice Theory (Clarke & Cornish) six basic propositions: crimes are purposive & deliberate acts, committed with the intention of benefiting the offender In seeking to benefit themselves, offenders do not always succeed in making the best decisions because of the risks and uncertainty involved. offender decision making varies considerably with the nature of the crime.

Decisions about becoming involved in particular kinds of crime (involvement decisions) are quite different from those relating to the commission of a specific criminal act (event decisions). Involvement decisions can be divided into three stages – becoming involved for the first time (initiation), continued involvement (habituation), and ceasing to offend (desistance) – that must be separately studied because they are influenced by quite different sets of variables.

Event decisions include a sequence of choices made at each stage of the criminal act (e.g. preparation, target selection, commission of the act, escape and aftermath.) human behaviour is almost never senseless acts as satisficing rather than optimizing decision making is relevant to a specific crime

involvement decisions relate to ‘stages’ in a criminal career: initiation habituation desistance event decision refer to decisions related to committing a specific act additional factors: background factors current life circumstances situational variables

refer to Figures 1 & 2, pages 28 and 30 what makes rational choice theory different? focus on choice a theory of both crime & criminality focus on dynamic nature of crime importance of situation & opportunity distinction between motive and motivation the normality of crime a general theory policy relevance compatibility with criminal justice

applications of the rational choice theory: repeat victimization preferences of thieves (CRAVED) serial kills dramatic fall in suicide situational crime prevention e.g. photo-radar ‘green space’ 7-11 redesign

criticisms of rational choice theory criminals are far from rational only some crimes are rational the theory is nothing new Can rational choice theory explain pedophilia? Vandalism? Minor assault? Terrorism?