Beccaria and Bentham ⇒ classical school of crim
people exercise free will and have agency
we are rational beings
people are hedonistic pleasure-seekers
rationally engage in hedonistic calculus (i,e, seek to increase pleasure and minimize pain)
are people equally rational?
are people consistently rational?
policy implications
try to change behavior with negative reinforcement
after the outcome of hedonistic calculus
punishment must offsetthe pleasure of crime
not focused on retributions and/or retaliation
classical ←—————neoclassical ——————→ positivism
most free will. least free will (there are other outside factors)
Beccaria
criminals have free will and are rational
deterrence ⇒ to deter future behavior, punishment must have 3 components: swift, certain, and severe
swift (or celerity)
swiftness of societal response
assumes swift punishment has more of an impact than delayed punishment
certain
chances of being caught and punished
within the CJS, this includes the chances of being:
caught, charged, brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced
severe
punishments must be proportionate to ‘harm caused to society’
punishments must be severe enough or provide enough pain to offset the pleasure of the criminal acts
hedonistic calculus - assumes individuals rationally weigh the perceived benefits against the perceived costs of offending
absence, or weakening, of any of the 3 erodes any deterrent effect (i.e., specific or general deterrence)
TYPES OF DETERRENCE
specific deterrence
efforts that keep the individual offender from future offending
assumes direct punishment will deter future illegal activity
general deterrence
efforts that keep others (beyond the offender) from future offending
assumes apprehension/punishment of offender — or indirect punishment — serves as a deterring example to others
EFFECTS OF DETERRENCE
deterrence is the cornerstone of CJS and policies/programs
swiftness of punishment
CJS has become exponentially overburdened and sluggish
certainty of arrest and punishment (whether or not they do catch crimes when they occur)
some connection between certainty and lower crime rates, but
nature of the relationship is NOT totally clear
often confounded by the type of crime and other factors
often race/ethnicity-specific
severity of punishment
capital punishment
weak to no empirical support
most homicides are not premeditated or rational
capital punishment sentences are not:
certain (i.e. racial/ethnic disparities and state-by-state variations)
swift (i.e. ~15 years from sentencing to execution)
deterrence has only a modest effect on crime (Pratt et al., 2006)
certainty has greatest deterrent potential
swiftness and severity hold little to no deterrent potential
severity has weakest deterrent effect
deterrence effects from experience and perceptions
NEOCLASSICAL THEORIES
modern sociological/criminological theories are soft determinism
crime opportunities and offending motivations produced by:
social and environmental factors (i.e. demographics, concentrated disadvantage, etc)
rational choice theory (cornish and clark, 1986)
assumes crime and victimization is opportunistic and unplanned
assumes rational decision-making
hedonistic calculus
offenders rely on pst observations and experiences
crime scripts
outlines steps and actions necessary for crime commission
developed over time through experience and prctice
once developed, scripts become second nature and require little conscious thought
given this, offenders select targets:
low risk
high reward
minimal effort
empirical evidence
offender makes rational choices about when, where, and how to offend
offenders weigh anticipated risks and rewards of:
“premeditated” criminal offending
selection of targets/victims
bounded rationality
decisions are rational to an extent, but are limited to:
information
prior experiences with similar situations
perceptions of effort associated with crime
crime scripts — second nature reactions, little conscious thought
gamblers fallacy u
routine activities theory (cohen and felson, 1979)
normal, daily behavior contributes to crime opportunities
crime opportunities occur at the convergence (think crime traingle)
motivated offender
suitable victim or target
and an absence of capable guardianship
situational crime prevention - Ron Clarke
aimed at specific problems, places, persons, and times
impact offenders’ perceptions through situational techniques
increasing their [criminal’s] effort to succeed
target hardening
locks, unbreakable glass, safes, and other secuirty devices
subway fare avoidance
access control
increase their risk
surveillance (i.e., natural, formal, and employee)
low rewards
hot spots policing
hot spots ⇒ small areas where crime is frequent and highly predictable
high police presence, arrests/crackdowns
minneapolis hot spots policing experiment
3% of city = 50% PD calls for service
operation ceasefire/boston gun project (1996)
deter gun homicides, target chronic offending gang youth — “pulling levers”
gang members were 1% of Boston youth = 60% youth homicide
pulling levers ⇒ they would bring youth gang members into local community centers and used scare as a method to prevent crime where access to plea bargains,
crime prevention through environmental design (CPTEP)
efforts to alter the physical design of an area to impact crime
defensible space
image — appearance that area is:
not isolated
cared for
territoriality - sense of area ownership, recognize legitimate area users
real territoriality (i.e., walls, fences, and gates)
symbolic territoriality (i.e., signs and landscaping)
surveillance - ability to observe inside/outside activity
natural, formal (ability for law enforcement to maneuver) , and mechanical (think cameras)
displacement
crime moves
undesirable movement of crime(s) due to prevention/control method
from one geographic are to another
shift from one type of crime to another
diffusion of benefit
beneficial intervention effect outside of target area
spread to nearby areas
spread to other crime(s) and offenders
crime pattern theory (brantingham and brantingham, 1993)
crime fits identifiable patterns
crime can be understood when we know where and when it occurs
though daily activities and movement, people construct and refine mental images or cognitive maps of environment
cognitive maps used to inform rtional behavior
components:
nodes: centers of activity (i.e., residential, work, and commercial/recreational)
paths
transit routes between nodes
edges — prime sports for crime
physical edges may limit movement
social and economic edges reflect areas of potential crime due to 1. anonumity and 2. lack og guardianship
cognitive map ⇒ taking all the above info into a map