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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Neo-classical Theories Deterrence theory  Swift, certain, severe punishment reduces crime  Focus on formal punishment Rational Choice theory  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 Criminal behavior (or crime rates) vary directly with _______ of FORMAL punishment.  Certainty  Severity  Swiftness MICRO or MACRO? Specific or General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS 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?  Incapacitate