The rational offender
Download
1 / 21

The Rational Offender - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 772 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Rational Offender' - sage


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The rational offender l.jpg

The Rational Offender

The “Classical School”

Deterrence Theory

Rational Choice Theory

Routine Activities Theory


Social context of the classical school l.jpg
Social Context of the “Classical” School

  • Prior to the 1700s

    • “The devil made me do it”

  • Punishments/justice system?


Social context ii l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
Marginal versus Absolute

  • Absolute deterrence: the existence of formal punishment reduces crime

  • Marginal: increases in existing formal punishment reduces crime further


General deterrence macro l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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


ad