Deterrence Theory in Justice: Classical Foundations and Modern Implications

1. Deterrence “Free Will” Classical Theory

2. Classical theory • Beccaria: On crime and Punishment (1764) • Justice was chaotic, corrupt; governments were monarchies (divine right of kings) • Essay was a protest and a blueprint for government and justice • Advocated: social contract doctrine and utilitarianism, rationality of man, and the pleasure/pain principle

3. Classical (continued) • He advocated the need for: • Clear criminal laws • Swift and certain punishment • A scale of crimes and punishment • Punishments should be no more severe than necessary, or they will not be perceived as just, and the people would revolt

4. Classical theory (continued) • People are rational. If they know that punishment is swift, certain, just, and sufficiently severe, they will decide to obey rather than violate the law. • The crime would not be worth the punishment. Choices can be controlled by fear of punishment. • “Cost / Benefit Analysis”

5. Deterrence research • Deterrence: a legal threat designed to prevent/control criminal behavior • Assumes that people are rational, want the goods and services crime provides, and will commit crime if they do not fear being caught and punished • An inverse relationship should exist between crime and certainty, swiftness and severity of punishment

6. Deterrence research (continued) • Until recently, little research • Deterrence assumed to be true • Two types of research • objective measure research • perceptual research

7. Objective measure research • Compare arrest, conviction and sentencing data • If these numbers increase, crime should decrease--people should be deterred • Methodological problems occur • measurement problems • impossibility of controlling other factors

8. Objective measures • Increased patrol: Kansas City Patrol Experiment = no effect • Aggressive crackdown seem to have an initial effect, (i.e., tough drunk driving laws, “speed traps”) • Tends to dissipate over time if the risk of being caught is small.

9. Conclusions • Little is known about the effects of swiftness of punishment. (CJS is slow) • Certainty of apprehension (or the perception of certainty) has the most impact “I did not think I would get caught.” • Severity has no effect unless certainty of apprehension is increased. • Inability to catch offenders, rather than sentencing, is the weak point of the CJS.

10. Perceptual Research • Survey technique: ask people if they believe they will be caught, compare to their self-report of offending. • Law-abiding people believe they will get caught; criminals estimate the odds are much lower. • Panel studies: those who commit crimes lower their estimates--experiential effect. (We apprehend the dumb ones.) Rock-Throwing Burglars

11. Perceptual research (continued) • Whether individuals are deterred depends on individual characteristics: • moral development • gender • social class • impulsivity • thrill-seeking/risk taking • Mental capacity Can’t fix Stupid

12. Other deterrents • Informal sanctions • disapproval of family and peers • Feeling of guilt • a moral code • loss of reputation • loss of material goods

13. Informal deterrents (continued) • If there were no punishment, would you commit crimes?

14. Rational choice • Given enough opportunity, anyone might commit a crime if motivated. (Magic Mtn example) • Some crimes obviously have a rational basis • Professional burglars • “Broken Windows” concept • “Target hardening”

15. Crime prevention • Home security systems • Dead-bolt locks and steel doors • High intensity street lighting • Neighborhood Watch • Risks and effort should outweigh the potential benefits.

16. Why deterrence is limited • Many crimes may be impulsive, or committed under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Such criminals might not be rational. • Crimes committed by those who have nothing to lose. • We cannot detect many crimes without a much more extensive surveillance system.