Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories

Medieval Criminal Justice Trial by ordeal Forced confessions Severe public punishment Burning (hell on earth) Mutilation (body subordinate to soul) “Ritual of a thousand deaths”

A Reform Movement The Enlightenment Depart from “supernatural” theory Faith in rationality, social contract theory Depart from “supernatural” theory The Classical School of criminology is born Assumptions about human nature Rational, autonomous, hedonistic, calculating

A Theory of Deterrence On Crimes and Punishment, Beccaria (1764) Punishment protects the social contract Punishment should fit the crime, no more Underlying theory Prevention through deterrence is the primary justification for punishment Condemned by the Catholic Church

Principles of Deterrence To deter, punishment should be: Certain To increase fear of consequences Swift To make association with punishment Severe enough to outweigh the pleasure of crime Any more is “tyrannical,” inefficient

Elaborations of Deterrence Specific v. general Punishment v. non-punishment Absolute v. restrictive Formal v. informal sanctions

Specific v. General Deterrence

Punishment/Non-Punishment Stafford and Warr (1993) Personal experience with punishment Personal experience avoiding punishment Vicarious experience with punishment Vicarious experience avoiding punishment Determines the deterrent effect

Absolute v. Restrictive Deterrence Absolute deterrence Abstention Restrictive deterrence Less frequent Less severe Displacement

Empirical Research There is moderate support for certainty, little to none for severity Why does certainty seem to work better than severity? What does this tell us about how offenders think?

Formal v. Informal Sanctions Informal = unofficial punishment Disapproval from significant others Feelings of remorse, guilt, shame Expands the range of negative consequence Informal sanctions enhance formal sanctions But not for everyone, why?

In and Out and Back In Favor Deterrence theory fell out of favor in the 1800s, replaced by positivism Deterrence reemerged in the late 1960s as a rationale for punishment Coincided with a renewed emphasis on offender deterrence and retribution within the criminal justice system

Practical Limits of Deterrence Penalties often learned after arrest Underestimate risk of being caught Clearance rates are generally low Crime displacement may occur Rational abilities may be impaired Drugs, alcohol, passion, mental disorder Some people have little to lose

From Deterrence to Rational Choice Deterrence theory focuses on the effect of punishment on criminal choices Rational choice theory focuses on the effect of opportunity on criminal choices

Rational Choice Theory Crime benefits the offender Crime brings pleasure People’s rationality is bounded We gather, store, & use information imperfectly We tend to focus on immediate gains, not long-term costs Offenders focus on situational opportunities Criminals are opportunistic

Rational Motivations for Crime To obtain something To obtain pleasure To obtain sex To obtain peer approval To prove toughness To escape negative or unwanted situations To assert dominance or get one’s way in a dispute To settle a grievance, revenge

Rational Choices? A man beats his wife during an argument A father rapes his stepdaughter A man drives home drunk from a bar

Crimes that are not rational?

Cheating on Exams How would we control cheating using a rational choice perspective? Assumptions about cheating Interventions to prevent cheating

Assessment of Choice Theory Opportunity rather than punishment Offenders tend to ignore long-term costs Situational factors rather than enduring motivational factors Assume the presence of criminal motivation Focus on offenders’ assessments of their immediate situations

Implications for Policy Situational crime prevention Reduce crime by blocking opportunities Consistent with the CJ emphasis on responsibility and punishment All crime is based at least in part on a choice Attempt to make criminal choices less attractive by reducing opportunities

Is there a place for morality in rational choice theory?