Quoted Passages & Lecture Material

Yesterday (Tues., 9/16) I quoted two passages from a book entitled, The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice (4th ed.), which questioned the validity of deterrence theory. First, with regard to deterrence and capital punishment:
" A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those that don't. There is no evidence to indicate that this is true. The United States is the only Western democracy that retains capital punishment; it is also the country with the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Comparative analyses of regions within the U.S. reveal the same pattern. Southern states account for about 80 percent of all executions, and the South is the only region with a homicide rate above the national average. The homicide rate in states that have retained the death penalty is 6.6; the rate for non-death penalty states is 3.5." (p. 335)

Then, a broader criticism from the same source which I quoted:
"If prison terms deterred further criminality, we would expect that people who go to prison would be among those least likely to return there. However, the fact is that within 3 years of release from prison 47 percent were reconvicted for a new crime."
"So the commonsense logic of deterrence is neither logical nor sensible. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both criminals and crime. For deterrence to work, the offender must be a logical actor who understands the consequences of criminal behavior, knows the penalties, and weighs the costs of the crime against the benefits of crime. Logic and calm reflection are simply not parts of the crime equation. In addition, a sizable number of offenders are people without hope, living in desparate circumstances. They are the poor, unemployed, the uneducated, and the socially alienated. Fear of prison is a relatively minor consideration when stacked up against the hopelessness of their day-to-day existence. Yet, police and politicians continue to pledge eradiction of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)


Since the above passages also speak to the validity of Rational Choice theory, let me go ahead and include my lecture notes on that:

RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY came into vogue in the 1980s, and it was introduced by economists who attempted to explain not only criminal behavior but all kinds of human behavior. It is based on the same general view of human nature in classical criminology. More specifically, it derives from the "expected utility" principle in economics -- that people will make rational decisions to act in certain ways based on the extent to which their choice of actions will maximize their profits and minimize costs or losses.

1. However, to quote the critical analysis of Prof. Ronald Akers (author of Criminological Theories (4th ed.): "Does an offender choose to commit a crime with full knowledge and free will, taking into account only a carefully reasoned...set of costs and benefits? If it is this kind of rationality that rational choice theory assumes, then the theory has virtually no empirical validity. The purely rational calculation of the probable consequences of an action is a rarity even among the general conforming public." (p. 24)

a. As I also commented yesterday, I would stress that most people most of the time, much less criminals who are generally less educated and more impulsive, do NOT act this way.

b. Indeed, well over half of those involved in crimes such as manslaughter or assault were under the influence of alcohol. And the last time I checked, alcohol is not known to enhance one's rational faculties.

2. Studies of repeat offenders also seem to bear out that criminals generally are not the rationally calculating actors deterrence and rational choice theories assume. Again, quoting Prof. Akers -- "...their actions and assessment of risks were unrealistic, even to some extent irrational. They were unable to make reasonable assessments of the risk of arrest, did little planning for the crime, were uninformed about the legal penalties in the state where the crime was committed." (p. 25) And add to this, incredible stories of the ineptitude of many criminals. Their focus seems to be almost exclusively on the rewards, not the potential penalties.

3. Finally, from a book entitled, Drug War Heresies:
"Expected legal risks do have an influence on decisions, but their effects are considerably more muted than generally assumed. Part of the problem is that people just do not seem to combine information in the manner suggested by rational choice theories. For example, Carroll (1978) found that when evaluating hypothetical crime opportunities, few adult and juvenile offenders focused on more than one of the four key deterrence factors: probablity of success, amount of gain, probablity of capture, and size of penalty."
"And the factors that do matter are more likely to involve carrots than sticks. Studies comparing the relative influence of the rewards and risks of crime suggest that criminal gains are more influential than the probablity of capture...."
"One reason gains generally loom larger than risks is that the gains tend to be immediate, whereas legal sanctions are not only uncertain but also in the remote future. Criminal offenders are particularly prone to impulsiveness and an inability to delay gratification." (pp. 84-85)

I realize I am being hard on deterrence and rational choice theories, but I believe there is just too much evidence that most people, most of the time simply don't act in a rationally calculating manner.

We'll pick up with Routine Activities Theory on Thursday.