Passages on Deterrence & Rational Choice theories

Below are the passages I quoted in class this morning (Thurs., 9/22), all of which are critical of both deterrence and rational choice theory.

First, from a book entitled, "The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice" (4th edition):

In a section entitled, "General Deterrence": "A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those who 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)

And a more general comment about "get tough" policies that have prevailed in our criminal justice system for the past 30 years or so: "Longer sentences for repeat offenders continue to be a political panacea for crime. It is an easy solution to sell because it seems logical. According to popular folk wisdom, severe punishment and the certainty of prison will deter crime. That may be commonsense logic, but it is wrong. The simple fact is that prison does not deter crime, and severe sanctions probably increase the amount of crime in society. 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 desperate circumstances. They are the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, 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 eradication of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)

Then, from Ronald Akers on rational choice theory:

"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 pure 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)

Finally -- referring to a study of repeat offenders: "...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)
(a) And it was in this context that we brought out a few examples of criminals' ineptitude, which is much more common than careful planning.

That's all for now. I will be posting some more lecture notes on the blog over the weekend, so check them out. See you next week.