Classical Theory, Deterrence Theory, Rational Choice Theory and Routine Activities Theory, Slides of Criminology

Download Classical Theory, Deterrence Theory, Rational Choice Theory and Routine Activities Theory and more Slides Criminology in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Lecture 8: Classical Theory, Deterrence Theory, Rational Choice Theory, Routine Activities Theory I. Classical Theory II. Modern Deterrence Theory III. Rational Choice Theory IV. Routine Activities Theory 2 Part I: Classical Criminology and the Deterrence Doctrine • Beccaria believed people want to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. • Crime provides some pleasure, thus to deter crime one must administer some pain. Cesare Beccaria, 1738-1794 5 Classical Criminology Decisions to violate the law are weighed against possible punishments. To deter crime, the pain of punishment must outweigh the benefit of illegal gain. 6 Assumptions of Human Nature • Individuals have free will: Freedom to make personal behavioral choices unencumbered by environmental factors such as poverty or ideological beliefs. • Individuals maximize utility (e.g., happiness, food, resources) by weighing benefits and costs of their future actions before deciding on behavior. 7 Classic Deterrence Theory • Primary purpose of punishment is deterrence rather than vengeance. • Severity: Punishment must be just severe enough to overcome the gain from a crime. Punishment that is too severe is unjust, and punishment that is not server enough will not deter. • Without proportionality, people will not be deterred from committing more serious crimes (e.g., if rape and murder both punished with death, a rapist would have little reason to refrain from killing the victim). 10 Absolute and Marginal Deterrence • Absolute Deterrence: A particular punishment can deter a type of crime completely. • Marginal Deterrence: A relatively more severe penalty will produce some reduction in crime. • Does the state provide a significant marginal deterrent beyond that assured by informal control systems and socialization? 11 The Purposes of Punishment General Deterrence - By punishing the offender we hope that others considering committing the same crime with not think it worth it Specific Deterrence - Same as above, but with respect to the offender themselves, not other potential offenders Incapacitation - If the offender is in jail, society is safe Retribution - Offenders “deserve” punishment as a payment to society for their crimes Moral Outrage - Catharsis and relief for society … closure Rehabilitation - May provide an opportunity to help the offender Restitution - Offenders should compensate their victims 12 Part II. Modern Deterrence Theory • Classical approach important in justice policy during the 19th century, but became of less interest to criminologists at the end of the 19th century. • Beginning in the mid-1970s, a resurgence in interest in the classical approach. Rehabilitation approach came under attack from conservative citizens and politicians. Rational actor models from economics and political science brought to criminology. Certainty Severity Crime Rate Lo 16 Objective Measures Independent Variables: Certainty or risk of penalty: measured by arrest rate (total arrests/total crimes) or proportion of arrested individuals prosecuted. Severity: maximum sentence provided by law (e.g. capital punishment), proportion of convicted offenders sentenced to prison. Dependent Variable: Official crime rate known to police. 17 Empirical Evidence: Capital Punishment and Homicide • Immediate Impact Studies: If capital punishment is effective, it should have greatest impact after a well publicized execution. • Comparative Research: Compare areas (counties, states, countries) with respect to capital punishment laws and homicide rates. • Time Series Analysis: Compare homicide rates and death penalty statutes through time. 20 Comparative Research • The 5 countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per every 100,000 people, • The 5 countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders every 100,000 people. Executions, 1930-27001 200 150 100 oO o 13530 41540 1540 1560 1570 1550 1550 #000 Rate i | | . , | |-=ucr 2 } | —Vital Stats | |—/ | Revieed Vs | | | 2 Set Peer PUPS TTT TT 1900 toa twz0 sa tose aw60 s0ec tara 100 1900 2000 22 Problem with Ehrlich’s Analysis • Ehrlich’s findings in support of the deterrence hypothesis vanished when certain years (e.g., 1960s) are excluded. • Problem with measuring certainty in his model. Police undercounted reported crime, and possibly over counted arrests, thus certainty of apprehension variable was biased in Ehrlich’s model. 25 Are Criminal Sanctions More Effective Deterrents for other Types of Crimes • Cable TV wire splitters. • Drinking and driving. • Dispute-related violence (domestic violence, “honor”, “passion”) 106 1200 1 ao0 400 200 o ee PART I “GET TOUGH": THE CONSERVATIVE ATTACK ON CRIME Scandinavian-type laws 1966——}— 1987 Putri ti t FMAM I TAS OND] = pipette ie ti te | DEMAM ID TAS OND] FMani. [| a SURLY SOMO PE MAMI Pa SOND t LSFu | 27 Perceptual Measures • Perception of criminal sanctions important. • Measures an individual’s perception about the risks of being apprehended and punished for a crime, and their likelihood to commit a crime. • “How likely is it that someone like you would be arrested if they shoplifted in Target?” 30 Longitudinal Studies Preferable • In year 1, measure an individual’s perception of criminal sanctions. • Then, in the following year, use self-report methods to see if individual was or was not involved in criminal acts. 31 Deterrence from Informal Controls • With addition of variables measuring attachment and reliance on parents and peers, effect of state (formal) criminal sanctions disappears. • Informal sanctions (shame by peers, punishments from parents) may be more important than formal sanctions from the state. 32 Part III: Rational Choice Theory • Rational choice theory grew out of same utilitarian philosophy as deterrence. However, rational choice theory was developed by economists, and brought to criminology in the 1970s (e.g., Gary Becker, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach). 35 Costs 1.) Material costs (and transaction costs) associated with event (e.g., having to pay a “get away” driver). 2.) Psychic costs: possible feelings of guilt from committing crime, shame from friends. 3.) Opportunity costs: time that could be spent doing something else. 4.) Expected punishment costs (the main focus of deterrence theorists). 36 Benefits: 500$ week Costs: 40 hours a week, boring, 1000$ week Costs: 5 hours a week, 1 in 10,000 chances of prison ? 37 Pure and Partial Rationality • Pure rational choice models work well for mathematical models, but do these fit well with human nature? • Humans may often make choices that are partially rational. However, due to the complexities of life, people may rely on cultural traditions, “rules of thumb” heuristics, and social learning processes such as imitation and conformity. 40 Part IV. Routine Activities Theory (RAT) • For personal or property crime to occur, there must at the same time and place be a perpetrator, a victim, and/or an object of property. • RAT is an intuitive theory that focuses on situations of crimes (e.g., you are more likely to be robbed in the park than in your locked apartment). Routine Activity Theory acks capable Viplers yais e| STs Mh EsT i Es Clits: thus Crime SUTU LESTE) Lye lies ete The interaction of three factors! 42 Routine Activities and Rational Choice Theory • Analytic Focus – Routine activities takes a macro-level view • Spans space and time • Emphasizes victim behavior/decisions – Rational choice takes a situational view • Focuses on specific crime events • Emphasizes offender behavior/decisions • Complimentary Perspectives 45 Empirical Validation of RAT • Cohen and Felson focus analyses on suitable targets and absent guardians in their analysis. Motivation of offenders included in theory, but often not tested directly. • Crime data suggests victimization rates are higher for individuals who are more likely to be exposed to strangers without guardians to protect them. 46 Guardianship Burglary/Robbery Rates (per 1,000) 2.04.079.16136-55 1.76.01.10756 + 1.78.081.144All Ages 2.11.095.2018-35 Two +One Ratio Number in Household Age Source: Cohen and Felson, 1979 Also, proportion of households unattended has increased over time 47 VARIABLES VICTIM CATEGORY RAPE ROBBERY ASSAULT PERSONAL LARCENY W/ CONTACT PLACE OF RESIDENCE In or near home 63 129 572 75 Elsewhere 119 584 1,897 1,010 VICTIM/OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP Relative 7 13 158 5 Strangers 25 349 530 366 Number of Victims One 179 647 2,116 1,062 Two 3 47 257 19 Four plus 0 6 43 1 Location and Relationship Home, stranger 61 147 345 103 Home, Non-stranger 45 74 620 22 Street, stranger 1,370 7,743 15,684 7,800 Street, Non-stranger 179 735 5,777 496 50 Proportion of Households Unattended By Anyone 14 Years or Older Time of Day 1960 Census (%) 1971 Pop. Survey (%) % Change 8-9 am 29 43 + 48.9 9-10 am 29 44 + 58 10-11 am 31 42 + 36 11-12 am 32 41 + 28 12-1 am 32 41 + 28 1-2 pm 31 43 +39 2-3 pm 33 43 +30 3-4 pm 30 33 +10 7-8 pm 20 29 +45 51 Trend in Consumer Goods • Sales of consumer goods changed dramatically between 1960 and 1970 (i.e., more people buying TVs, radios, etc). • The size and weight of these items also reduced. • In sum, in the post WWII years there were MORE items to steal. Further, high resale items became lighter and smaller. 52 Target Suitability $0.08Large, durable goods $0.12Furniture $6.82Electronic appliances $26.44Motor vehicles and parts Amount stolen per $100 spent Source: Cohen and Felson, 1979 55 Spatial Analysis of Crime “Hot Spots”: Are some areas more suitable for crime (i.e., suitable targets without guardians)? 56 Other Tests of RAT • People that leave the house more (e.g., college students) experience high victimization rates. • Looting occurs during wars and natural disasters because guardianship is at least temporarily reduced. 57 Criticism of RAT • RAT is mainly a macro theory of victimization. It tells us who is more likely to be victimized. But who are the offenders? • There is a correlation between criminal victims and offenders, thus patterns found by RAT theorists could be misleading.