1. 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

2. 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

3. 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?)

4. 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

5.  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?

6. 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’

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

8. 2. Criminology - Pioneers - Beccaria
the classical school of criminology
the Enlightenment ( )
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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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”

13. 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?

14. 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”

15. 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

16. 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?

17. 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”

19. 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’

20. 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

21. 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

22. “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

23. 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)

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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?