Critique of Deterrence Theory & Additional Lecture Notes

I know this sounds like a broken record, but I was frustrated again yesterday (Tues. 9/29) at not getting far enough into Chapter 3, so I am going to use this blog to catch up a bit. In fact, I am toying with the idea of posting my lecture notes on the blog on a regular basis and then using class time to illustrate, elaborate, and discuss the notes further. I'll let you know what I decide on that score.

First, a few comments on my criticism of deterrence theory and its later manifestation, rational choice theory.

In attacking the idea that criminals choose to commit their crimes based on a rational calculation of benefits and costs, I glossed over another critical point -- that well over half of those involved in crimes such as manslaughter or assault were under the influence of alcohol, and alcohol is not known to enhance one's rational faculties.

The passage from Prof. Akers on a study of repeat offenders goes as follows:
"...their actions and assessments 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."

The focus of criminals (as for many of us) seems to be directed largely to the potential rewards, with little consideration of the possible costs. The book, "Drug War Heresies," makes a similar point: "Criminal offenders are particularly prone to impulsiveness and an inability to delay gratification."

So, to emphasize again, the whole premise of classical and neo-classical theory (or deterrence and rational choice theory) is questionable. Most of us, most of the time, much less criminals, do NOT act in the rationally calculating way this theory assumes.

Finally, such criticism tends to cast doubt on the wisdom of more certain and severe penalties being given in an effort to control or reduce crime. eg. mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes and you're out," etc. (The author of the text makes the connection between these punishments and the classical theory but he does NOT clearly draw this critical point.)

That brings us up to the next major heading in the text where I will continue my lecture notes.....

ECOLOGICAL THEORY

A. This theoretical perspective occupies a place in between classical criminology and the biological theory of Lombroso. Although I am not familiar with the theorists mentioned, I believe it would be more accurate to refer to this as the "statistical" or "geographical" theory. What is called "human ecology" will resurface again as the basis for what is called "social disorganization" theory.

B. Both Guerry and Quetelet were looking very broadly at crime rates in whole countries or particular geographic or climatic regions.

1. I agree with the point the author makes about Quetelet -- that consistent variations among crime rates in certain social categories -- age, gender, etc. -- suggests that crime is not simply a matter of idiosyncratic, individual choice.
However, there are all sorts of problems with his so-called "thermic law of crime" -- that temperature has something to do with the types of crime committed, which is questionable.

C. And although the author neglects to bring it out here (even though it is in the subject index and defined in the glossary at the end of the book, p. 399), we need to be aware of the "ecological fallacy": "A problem when group statistics and rates are used in order to describe (or explain) individual behavior."
So, just because the property crime rate is higher in cold climates does NOT mean that somehow the cold causes individuals to steal. Rates are strictly about group-level characteristics.


FORERUNNERS OF MODERN CRIMINOLOGICAL THOUGHT

A. Three big names in the history of Western thought are mentioned which you should all recognize. Hagan treats them all very simplistically. Only ONE had a fairly direct impact on later criminological theory -- that was Karl Marx and his focus on economic inequality in capitalism. Darwin's theory of evolution had a huge impact on social thought and sociology, but NEGLIGIBLE impact on criminology or, more specifically, biological theories of crime. Freud's theories did contribute to a psychoanalytic theory of crime, but other psychological theories were NOT inspired by Freud's view which is looked upon unfavorably these days.

POSITIVISM

A. The main thing about positivism is that it involves the sytematic application of the scientific method. Comte certainly was the "prophet" of positivism -- he promoted it as the best, most appropriate way to look at society, in contrast to a religious or philosophical view of society which prevailed in earlier periods.

1. The other two elements -- discovery & diagnosis of pathology and treatment -- although part of Comte's sociology, are not essential to positivism.
___________________________________

That brings us up to BIOLOGICAL THEORY, which is where we will pick up tomorrow (Thurs. 10/1).