SPECIFIC DETERRENCESPECIFIC DETERRENCE

Individuals who are caught and sanctioned by the criminal justice system will be less likely to re-offend◦Does prison reduce recidivism?◦Do “deterrence based” programs reduce

recidivism? BOOT CAMPS INTENSIVE PROBATION

1

Boot CampsBoot Camps

Nature of Boot Camp (BC)Relation to Deterrence Theory

◦Other vague theories tied into (BC)Evidence

◦Over 35 experiments of reasonable quality conducted

◦Most find no difference, the few that find differences go both ways

◦Some evidence that BC with strong rehab component and good “aftercare” reduces crime

2

Intensive Supervision Intensive Supervision ProbationProbationThe nature of ISP

◦Make probation meanerTie to deterrence

◦Pain + Reduced opportunity to offendRAND experiment

◦10 sites across country with random assignment

◦No difference in arrest for new crimes◦ISP groups much more likely to get technical

violations

3

Minneapolis domestic violence Minneapolis domestic violence study (Larry Sherman)study (Larry Sherman)

Randomly assign d.v. strategies to police officers◦Arrest, Counsel, or Separate for 8 hours◦Arrest as painful “deterrent”

Findings: Arrest = 10% re-arrested after 3 monthsCounseling = 19%Separate = 24%

BUT: Replications not supportive ◦May work better with people who are tied to

community

4

What about JOE? What about JOE? 5

Joe’s StudyJoe’s Study

University of Arizona ◦Money from Joe to see whether his jails reduced

crime Comparison of cohorts of inmates pre-Joe

and during-Joe◦There was no difference in recidivism rates

6

Conclusions Regarding Empirical Conclusions Regarding Empirical Support Support

Weak empirical support◦If anything, the certainty of punishment may

have marginal effects on crime Clearance rate, focused deterrence, etc.

WHY SO WEAK?◦Based on “weak” theory—weak assumptions ◦Limits of deterrence in a democratic society◦MARGINAL vs. ABSOLUTE

7

Policy Implications of DeterrencePolicy Implications of Deterrence

Policy Implication = If the theory is correct, what can be done to reduce crime?

Rehabilitation, (unless painful) won’t work, and may “send the wrong message”

Raising the certainty, swiftness or severity of criminal penalties will work

If system cannot be swift, severe and certain enough, then reduce opportunities for offending ◦ Incapacitation

8

IncapacitationIncapacitation

A thug in prison can’t shoot your sister◦Easy (thought expensive) to do—we have the

technology◦Common sense/logic dictates that some crime

reduction will be achieved

9

Incapacitation IIIncapacitation II

How well does it work?◦Comparing states to each other◦Projecting crime savings from surveys of people

entering jails◦Examining states that are forced to release

inmatesWorks best for high rate offenses

(burglary, robbery, theft)—not at all for homicide

Doubling prison population from 400K to 800K reduced robbery by 18%

10

Incapacitation IIIIncapacitation III

Downsides◦Least effective for crimes that most scare

Americans (rape, homicide)◦EXPENSIVE

Marginal effects—the more you do it the less it works.

Fighting the “age crime curve”◦May be counter productive over long term

(nothing positive happening in prison)

11

What About Informal Sanctions?What About Informal Sanctions?

Fear of Informal Sanctions is not “Deterrence theory.” ◦Informal social control theory (Hirschi, others)

However, formal sanctions may “kick in” informal sanctions.◦Arrest may disappoint parents◦Prison may alienate family/friends

12

Neo Classical Theory Part IINeo Classical Theory Part II

Rational Choice TheoryRational Choice TheoryRoutine Activities TheoryRoutine Activities TheorySituational Crime PreventionSituational Crime Prevention

““Rational Choice Theory”Rational Choice Theory”

Economics (language, theory)◦“Expected Utility” = calculation of all risks and

rewards ◦This is much broader than deterrence

Includes risks not associated with criminal justice Same core assumption as deterrence theory

◦Human nature = rational, calculating, hedonistic◦This is because “economic theory” (supply/demand,

rational consumers) has the same “classical school” roots

Rationality AssumptionRationality Assumption

How “RATIONAL” is the offender?◦PURE RATIONALITY = only expected utility

(rational calculation of risk/reward) matters Few theories, if any, take this position

◦LIMITED RATIONALITY Information/time limited (quick, “rough” decisions)

Other “things” matters◦CORNISH AND CLARKE good example

Cornish and Clarke Cornish and Clarke (1986)(1986)

Crime as a Rational Choice

◦Criminal Involvement: the decision to engage in crime (versus other activity)

◦Criminal Event: factors that influence the decision to commit a specific crime

Criminal InvolvementCriminal Involvement

Choices to become involved in crime, to continue in crime, and to desist from crime◦Each (involvement, continuance, desistence) need

separate explanation◦Involvement decisions are “multistage and multi-

factor,” extending over long time periods

MOST PEOPLE WANT MONEY/STUFF, WHY DO SOME CHOOSE TO BURGAL (RATHER THAN WORK) TO GET IT?

Example of factors that Example of factors that explain initial involvement:explain initial involvement:

Background Factors◦temperament, intelligence, cognitive style, sex,

class, education, neighborhood, broken home…

Previous experience◦Direct and vicarious learning, moral attitudes,

self-perception, foresight and planning

Solutions evaluated◦Degree of effort, amount/immediacy of reward,

likelihood and severity of punishment, moral costs

CriticismsCriticisms

What happened to our “rational” offender guided by “free will?”◦In their models, rational thinking and free will

are very constrained/limited◦Not much different from other theories of crime

Borrow liberally from learning theory, psychology, social control theory…

◦At what point does their theory cease to be a “rational choice” model and start to become a learning, social control, IQ theory of crime?

The Criminal EventThe Criminal Event

Focus on predictors of specific crimes, look at immediate (situational) factors◦GIVEN THAT SOMEONE IS OK WITH BURGLING,

WHAT LEADS THEM TO BURGAL A SPECIFIC HOUSE IN A SPECIFIC NEIGHBHOOD?

Area ◦Easily accessible, few police patrols, low security

Home◦anyone home?, especially wealthy, detached,

bushes/other cover, dog, security system...

The Criminal Event in Drug The Criminal Event in Drug SmugglingSmuggling

Interviews with Federal Inmates involved in drug smuggling

How “rational” are they?◦Shipping Insurance◦Methods for evading detection (high end

electronics, study of interdiction methods/patterns, etc.)

Still…◦Tendency to overestimate rewards and minimize

thinking about risks.

Evaluating Rational ChoiceEvaluating Rational Choice

Empirical Support? Criminal Involvement ▪ Ethnographic research suggests limited (if

any) rational reasoning or weighing of costs/benefits.

Criminal Event▪ Ethnographic research somewhat supportive,

but many crimes suggest limited/crude appraisals. ▪ Attempt to evade detection

Parsimony and Scope? Policy Implication?

Routine Activities Theory (Cohen Routine Activities Theory (Cohen and Felson)and Felson)

Crime as the Convergence in Time and Space of Three Factors◦1. Motivated Offenders◦2. Suitable Targets◦3. Lack of Capable

Guardianship

Scope: “Direct-Contact Predatory Crimes”◦Felson in 1990s

extended to white collar crime, drug crime

Motivated offenders taken for Motivated offenders taken for grantedgranted

Assumption is that they are always present ◦Criticized for this (really a theory of crime?)

Mostly explains “victimization” or the “criminal event”◦Similar to Cornish and Clarke in that respect

Suitable TargetsSuitable Targets

Value ($, ability to fence)◦Some universal ($) some dependent upon

offenders environmentVisibility (sights and sounds)Inertia (why autos are victimized, high

tech movement)Access (cul-de-sac vs open-ended street,

garage parking vs. street parking)

Lack of Capable GuardianshipLack of Capable Guardianship

Protection from police??◦Less emphasis in this over time

Informal social control◦“…not usually someone who brandishes a gun

or threatens an offender with quick punishment, but rather someone whose mere presence serves as a gentle reminder that someone is looking.”

Strength in numbersTime spent at home

Why did crime increase in the post Why did crime increase in the post WWII era? WWII era?

Social indicators better, poverty declines….

Changes in “Routine Activities”◦Time spent away from home increases

(Guardianship and suitability) Women in workforce and college More vacation, national park visits increase,

◦Cheaper, lighter goods (suitability) Televisions in 1960s averaged 38 pounds, down to

15 pounds in 1970

Evaluating Routine Activities Evaluating Routine Activities TheoryTheory

Empirical Support◦WHY DOES PROPERTY CRIME INCREASE

DURING ECONOMIC PROSPERTIY? ◦Household activity ratio related to crime◦Criminal “Hotspots” within high crime areas◦Prison Studies (% time outside of cell)◦Victimization Studies

Criticism? Confirming common sense.

Policy ImplicationsPolicy ImplicationsDeterrence vs. Environmental Deterrence vs. Environmental CrimCrim

In deterrence theory, if the CJS (e.g., threat of arrest/imprisonment) is not effective, the only other option is incapacitation (removing offender from society). ◦This has been the preferred U.S. strategy

Rational Choice and Routine Activities Theory suggest that we can remove or limit the opportunity to offend by changing the environment. ◦This has been the preferred strategy in the UK◦Benefit of this approach over incapacitation??

Examples of Situational Examples of Situational Crime Prevention (Ronald Crime Prevention (Ronald Clarke) Clarke)

Technique ExamplesIncrease the effort for crime

Harden targets Steering column locks, tamper-proof packaging

Control access to facilities Electronic access to garages

Control tools/weapons Smart guns, plastic beer glasses in taverns

Increase the risks of crime

Extend guardianship Travel in groups at night, carry a phone

Assist natural surveillance Street lighting, defensible space

Utilize place managers Two clerks in convenience stores

Strengthen formal surveillance Burglar alarms, security guards

Examples of Situational Examples of Situational Crime Prevention IICrime Prevention II

Technique Examples

Reduce Reward

Remove targets Removable car radios, women’s refuges

Identify property Property marking, cattle branding

Reduce Provocations

Reduce emotional arousal Controls on violent pornography

Avoid disputes Fixed cab fares, reduce crowding in bars

Remove Excuses for Crime

Set rules Rental agreements, hotel registration

Control drugs/alcohol Breathalyzers in bars, alcohol-free events

Does crime just go around the Does crime just go around the corner? corner?

Study of police crackdowns and “catchment areas”◦Crime displacement may be less prevalent than expected

◦There may be some diffusion of benefits from crime prevention efforts

Review of Neoclassical ApproachReview of Neoclassical Approach

Roots in classical school (1750-1850)◦Commonality = humans as rational calculators ◦Renewed interest 1970s-present

Fit with conservative ideologyMain Flavors

◦Deterrence◦Rational Choice◦Routine Activities

Deterrence Theory Deterrence Theory

Formal punishment◦Swift, Certain, Severe

Types◦Specific vs. General◦Absolute vs. Marginal◦Focused deterrence

Evidence converges on importance of certainty over severity

Rational Choice TheoryRational Choice Theory

Much broader than deterrence◦What factors to humans consider when

choosing whether or not to commit crime? Criminal event vs. Criminal Involvement

Most RCT integrate concepts from other theories ◦Common criticism: lots of things in the theory

(sex, impulsivity, moral values) that limit free will

Routine Activities TheoryRoutine Activities Theory

Very similar to “criminal event” decisions in rational choice theory◦What immediate factors influence whether a criminal event will occur?Target SuitabilityGuardianship

◦Policy implication = situational crime prevention