SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für Theories of Crime

Theories of Crime

Age Graded Theory/ Turning Points (Sampson and Laub)

[also known as: Age-Graded Life-Course Theory of Crime, Age-Graded Development Theory, Theorie der Turning Points]

Robert J. Sampson’s and John H. Laub’s Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points describe the change in the crime load of individuals as a function of biographical events. For this purpose, they use the so-called ‘Turning Points’, which can either strengthen, weaken or interrupt criminal behaviour.

Main Proponents

Robert J. Sampson und John H. Laub

Theory

With the Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points, Sampson and Laub presented in 1993 one of the most outstanding developmental and life course theories (Schneider, 2007, p. 7). The theory states that criminality in a person’s life course does not necessarily have to be constant, but that biographical turning points can be associated with a discontinuity as well as the (re)initiation of criminal behavior. Turning points are to be understood as “abrupt – radical turnarounds or changes in life history that seperate the past from the future” (Sampson & Laub, 1996, p. 351), such as marriage, parenthood, taking up permanent employment, entering military service, etc.

For their theory, the authors used data from a previous study by the married couple Sheldon and Eleonore Glueck (see: Glueck & Glueck). They compared the personal histories of five hundred juvenile male delinquents who were in a reform school with the personal histories of five hundred nondeviant juveniles in a control group as early as the 1940s to 1950s. In their longitudinal study, the couple investigated the delinquency of adolescents and young men at the ages of 14, 25, and 32.

Sampson and Laub continued the longitudinal study by re-evaluating the already collected and evaluated data using new statistical methods, collecting data from criminal files on 475 delinquents and visiting still living test persons (who are now about 70 years old) and questioning them about their delinquency after the age of 32. The study design thus offers a unique opportunity to investigate the delinquency in the life course of individuals over an almost complete life span. Based on the interviews conducted and documented behavior in the past, Sampson and Laub can assign the subjects to three different categories:

  • Persisters: Persons who continued their criminal career into adulthood
  • Desisters: People who have ended their criminal career
  • Zigzag criminal career: Persons for whom the criminal career had no continuity and was applied from time to time.

From this they conclude that deviant behavior in the life course is characterized by both continuity and change.
The reason why crime occurs is weak social relationships, which are expressed in a low level of “social capital”. The nature and strength of social bonds varies more or less over the life course, and so social capital varies as well. Particular importance is attributed here to informal ties such as friendships, neighborhoods and marriages.

The main focus of this theory of crime is on the so-called turning points that are connected with the establishment or termination of social ties. Marriage, military service, and/or employment strengthen the level of social bonds and are accompanied by a greater degree of social control. The establishment of meaningful social bonds is accompanied by a change in everyday life routines. New informal obligations and increased social control have a positive effect on the development of non-deviant behavior.

However, a biographical turning point can also mark the beginning of an increase in delinquency: the loss of an employment relationship or the termination of a partnership, etc. reduces the level of informal commitments and social control. An increase in deviant/criminal behavior can be the result.

According to this, it is the same underlying social factors and the strength of the associated bonds that – depending on their characteristics – are responsible both for a delinquent life style and for a termination of a criminal career. Or as Sampson and Laub write themselves: “explanations of desistance from crime and persistent offending are two sides of the same coin” (2005: 171).

 

 

Turning Points (Wendepunkte) markieren ein biographisches Ereignis und dessen Einfluss auf die Kriminalitätsbelastung
A “Turning Point” marks a decisive biographical change that coincides with the discontinuation or (re)beginning of a criminal career.

 

Turning Points lönnen sowohl für eine Abnahme als auch Zunahme der Kriminalitätsbelastung verantwortlich sein
Turning Points can both mark the transition from a deviant lifestyle to a norm-compliant lifestyle and also indicate a turnaround to a deviant lifestyle.

 

Schaubild zur Turning Point/ Age Graded Theory
Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 244f.; here cited according to: Siegel, 2011, p. 234. Click on the image for a larger view.

 

Criminal policy implications

Sampson and Laub stand with their theory for a rehabilitating criminal law. In contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime or Moffit’s Two-Path-Theory, Sampson and Laub emphasize that delinquency in people’s lives can be characterized by continuity AND change. The transition to delinquency or the end of a delinquent lifestyle cannot be tied to specific points in time or time spans in the life course, but is possible at any time.
Thus, a life free of crime and punishment can be paved for everyone, even for serious offenders, through the right, meaningful social bonds.

Critical appreciation & relevance

Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded or Turning Points Theory is still the most influential theory in the field of Developmental Criminology. No other study offers a comparable insight into delinquency over the almost complete life span of individuals.

The focus on biographical turning points and their influence on the intensity of social control shows strong parallels to control theories, but also a close relationship to the labelling approach. For example, the authors point out that the future chances of young people are reduced by the experience of imprisonment: “the connection between official childhood misbehavior and adult outcomes may be accounted for in part by the structural disadvantages and diminished life chances accorded institutionalized and stigmatized youth. (Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 137).

The emphasis on changeable delinquent careers (Zigzag criminals) and persons who end their criminal careers at an advanced age (Desisters) contradicts other developmental theories that paint a more deterministic picture of career criminals (see, for example, Moffit’s Two-Path Theory).

Criticism of the age-graded theory is based on the lack of an explanation of why some people change their behavior as a result of the turning points, while for others biographical incisions have no influence on the development of delinquency. Furthermore, it remains unclear which factors and qualities characterize stable social bonds. Finally, the study is based on a sample of purely male subjects. Therefore, no statements can be made here about female delinquency or the influence of biographical turning points. Therefore, the theory cannot claim to be universally valid.

Factors such as a steady job or a partnership are generally regarded as important supporting factors that are taken into account, for example, when assessing the probability of recidivism of offenders. For example, an employment that implies a daily routine as well as social control plays a major role after release from prison. Furthermore, before release, increased emphasis is placed on continuous contact with family and partners, as these ideally serve as supporting factors.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making : pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1996). Socioeconomic Achievement in the Life Course of Disadvantaged Men: Military Service as a Turning Point, Circa 1940-1965. American Sociological Review, 61(3), pp. 347-367.
  • Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives : delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology. In: Farrington, D. P. (Hrsg.) Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending. New Brunswick: Transaction, pp. 165–181.

Secondary Literature

  • Schneider, H. J. (2007). Internationales Handbuch der Kriminologie. [Band 1: Grundlagen der Kriminologie]. Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.
  • Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology: The Core (4. Aufl.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Further Information

Video

Interview with John Laub and Robert Sampson — The Stockholm Prize in Criminology

John Laub, Director, Director, National Institute of Justice
Robert Sampson, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University
NIJ Conference 2011
June 20-22

 

Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub received the 2011 Stockholm Price in Criminology for their work on Age Graded Theory. In the statement of the jury it says:

Jury Motivation
The authors of the longest life-course study of criminal behavior ever conducted, Laub and Sampson discovered that even very active criminals can stop committing crimes for good after key “turning points” in their lives. In their sample of 500 male offenders born in the 1920s, these turning points included marriage, military service, employment, and other ways of cutting off their social ties to their offending peer group.
These findings have had broad influence in criminology world-wide. They have also influenced the policy debate about criminal justice and sentencing policy, especially concerning the potential for rehabilitation. Their work has influenced other scholars to search for means by which offenders can be assisted to break their links to other offenders, such as by moving to new communities.

Source: http://www.criminologyprize.com

Reintegrative Shaming (Braithwaite)

Shaming describes any form of reaction to deviant behaviour that causes shame in the deviant. Braithwaite assumes two different forms of shaming. Disintegrative shaming has a stigmatizing effect and excludes a person from the community. It thus provides for the emergence of secondary deviance and is thus related to the labelling approaches on a theoretical level. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, involves not only disapproval of deviance but also signs of forgiveness and a willingness to reintegrate the offender into the community.

Main Proponent

John Braithwaite

Theory

Based on the labeling approach, control theories and theories of social disorganization, Braithwaite distinguishing between two forms of shaming to explain the different ways in which penalties work. Braithwaite understands shaming as “all social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming” (Braithwaite, 1989: 100).

According to Braithwaite there are two forms of shaming:

The crucial distinction is between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval, which may range from mild rebuke to degradation ceremonies, are followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens. These gestures of reacceptance will vary from a simple smile expressing forgiveness and love to quite formal cere-monies to decertify the offender as deviant. Disintegrative shaming (stigmatization), in contrast, divides the community by creating a class of outcasts.
(Braithwaite, 1989: 55)

Disintegrative Shaming

Disintegratives Shaming: the British priest Titus Oates at the pillory

In disintegrative shaming, the focus is not only on the actual act committed, but on the person as a whole. The shamed person is degraded in his/her entire person. The stigmatisation that goes along with this has an effect on the social interactions of the ashamed person. For example, access to the labour market is denied and other measures are taken that contribute to social marginalisation. As a consequence, the ashamed person is now denied the opportunity to participate in mainstream culture. This ultimately leads to the formation of subcultural structures in which those so excluded join together.

Integrative Shaming

The negative consequences of punishment, however, are not inevitable. In reintegrative shaming, the act of shame is combined with an offer of reintegration into the community. Braithwaite assumes that this reintegrating shame is particularly promising when people from the perpetrator’s social environment are involved.

It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority.

(Braithwaite, 1989: 69)

How and why does shaming work?

Braithwaite (1989: 81 ff.) lists the following points that explain the effectiveness of shaming:

  1. Deterrence works more for fear of shame than for fear of punishment.
  2. Shame also functions as an instrument of negative general prevention, since other members of society who experience the shame of a perpetrator would be deterred by this experience from committing crimes themselves.
  3. Both the special and general preventive effect of shame has the strongest effect on socially integrated members of society.
  4. A stigmatising form of punishment, on the other hand, weakens social control and strengthens the cohesion of stigmatised offenders.
  5. Shame is a social process that illustrates the harmfulness of certain actions. The effect of shame is more effective than that of deterrent punishment.
  6. Reintegrative shaming has a greater positive effect than stigmatizing shaming. The repentance of the perpetrator and the forgiveness of the community would strengthen criminal law through the symbolic power of community-wide consciousness building.
  7. Shame is a participatory form of social control in which citizens – in contrast to formal sanctioning – are participating in the events and become both instruments and goals of social control.
  8. The cultural process of the formation of shame and repentance leads to pangs of conscience. This guilty conscience is the most effective punishment for committing crimes.
  9. Feelings of shame have a double function: they are both the social process that strengthens the conscience and the most important support that must be used if the conscience does not contribute to conformity. The fear of formal sanctioning is also an inhibition threshold, but not so effective.
  10. Gossip about perpetrators and their crimes has an important function. Gossip promotes the development of a conscience and morality even outside the social circles in which the perpetrators operate.
  11. Another important function is public shaming, which replaces private shaming when children and adolescents escape the sphere of influence of family and school. It would therefore be up to the courts to provide for public humiliation of the perpetrators of crimes committed primarily by adults (e.g. environmental crimes).
  12. Public shaming generalises familiar principles into unknown or new contexts and integrates new categories of misconduct into existing moral concepts. Public shaming could, for example, “transform” the loss of a human life into a war crime or massacre.
  13. Cultures with a strong emphasis on reintegrative shaming create a smoother transition between socialisation practices in the family and socialisation in wider society. Within the family, social control shifts from external to internal control as the child grows older. In punishment-oriented cultures, this process is reversed. However, internal control is the more effective form of crime control – which is why families are the more effective control agents than police forces.
  14. Shaming that is excessively confrontational complicates the social reintegration of the ashamed. Even without becoming targets of direct humiliation, members of society may be aware when they become the subject of gossip. Here, special gestures of acceptance are needed to promote reintegration.
  15. The effectiveness of feelings of shame is often increased by the fact that shame is directed not only against the individual perpetrator but also against his family or – in cases of white-collar crime – against the company. Within these collective relationships, the individual is exposed both to humiliation by society and to strengthening informal control by the family/company. A negative and defiant attitude of the individual towards his critics and thus a stronger identification with the deviant role would also aggravate the consequences of the shame for the family or the company, which is why this would encourage the individual in the acceptance of the shame.

In a complex diagram Braithwaite summarizes the effects of reintegrative shaming as well as stigmatization (click to enlarge). This illustrates the hybrid character of the theory that makes use of other crime theories. In the upper left corner there is a reference to control theories. To the right, the reference to theories of social disorganization is illustrated. In the lower right half of the picture, Braithwaite sketches the consequences of criminalization from the perspective of labelling approaches (also with reference to anomie and subculture theories). In contrast, in the lower left half of the diagram, Braithwaite presents the consequences (or consequences without consequences) of a re-integrating embarrassment.

Schaubild: Zusammenfassung der Theorie des reintegrative shaming (eigene Darstellung nach: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)
Figure: Summary of the theory of reintegrative shaming (based on: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)

Implications for Criminal Policy

Braithwaite’s theory can be understood as an answer to just deserts philosophy, i.e. a criminal policy that is primarily oriented towards the retaliatory character of punishment and negative general prevention. At the beginning of the 1970s, a change in criminal policy in the USA (but also in other countries) had to be taken into account. A rehabilitative ideal in which the reintegration of the offender into society has top priority is increasingly receding into the background. It is replaced by the just desert paradigm (“Everyone gets what he deserves”), which can be understood as a kind of retaliation. According to this doctrine, punishment should be adapted and standardized to the seriousness of the crime, measured by the damage inflicted and the seriousness of the offender’s guilt. So-called “sentencing commissions” have developed guidelines for criminal judges for many US states, whose discretion in the sentencing of criminals has been severely restricted (cf. Sebba, 2014).

Braithwaite’s Restorative Justice approach is to be understood as a clear criticism of this development and as his draft of a Restorative Justice approach.

Literature

  • Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press. [Volltext]
  • Sebba, Leslie (2014). Penal Paradigms: Past and Present. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Hrsg.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer Reference, S.  3481-3490.

Further Information

  • Christie, Nils (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology 17 (1), 1-15.

Video/ Podcast

A summary of the various theories on which Restorative Justice is based can be found here: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No63/No63_10VE_Braithwaite2.pdf

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Routine Activity Theory (RAT)

The Routine Activity Theory states that the occurrence of a crime is likely if there is a motivated offender and a suitable target, with the simultaneous absence of a capable guardian.

Main proponents

Lawrence E. Cohen, Marcus Felson, Ronald V. Clarke

Theory

According to Cohen and Felson, crime rates depend on the constantly changing lifestyles and behaviours of the population. Depending on the time and place, three factors that are decisive for Cohen and Felson and are responsible for the occurrence or absence of criminal behaviour vary (see diagram).

Scheme of the routine activity theory (rat)

Accordingly, the requirement for crime is a offender motivated to commit a crime, whereby this motivation can be of very different nature.

Then there must be an object suitable for the offender (potential victim, tempting object, etc.). There are various factors that influence whether the object is suitable: value, size/weight and visibility of the object as well as access to the object.

Last but not least, the lack of informal or formal control should be mentioned as protection for the object of the crime. This can be personal control, but also technical control: police officers and security personnel, video surveillance and alarm systems, attentive passers-by, neighbours, friends and staff.

In summary, the Routine Activity Theory describes crime as a situational event that depends less on the offender’s personality and socialization than on the situation in which the offender finds himself.

Implications for Criminal Policy

The criminal policy consequence of Rational Choice Theory, of Deterrence Theories, but above all of the Routine Activity Theory is the so-called Situational Crime Prevention.

This form of criminal policy does not attempt to prevent future crime by rehabilitating, deterring or segregating the perpetrator, but rather by reducing the contextual and situational possibilities for crime. The task of politics is therefore to change our common living environment in such a way that the number of opportunities to commit crimes is reduced.

In a later extension, Clarke and Eck (2005) extended the approach to 25 techniques of situational crime prevention. In addition to the theoretical foundations mentioned above, the reference to Sykes’ and Matza’s techniques of neutralization is noticeable here (see 5th column of the table: Reduce Excuses).

25 Situational Prevention Techniques

Increase the effortIncrease the risksReduce the rewardsReduce provocationsRemove excuses
1. Target harden

  • Steering column locks and ignition immobilizers

  • Anti-robbery screens

  • Tamper-proof packaging

6. Extend guardianship

  • Go out in group at night

  • Leave signs of occupancy

  • Carry cell phone

11. Conceal targets

  • Off-street parking

  • Gender-neutral phone directories

  • Unmarked armoured trucks

16. Reduce frustrations and stress

  • Efficient lines

  • Polite service

  • Expanded seating

  • Soothing music/muted lighting

 21. Set rules

  • Rental agreements

  • Harassment codes

  • Hotel registration
2. Control access to facilities

  • Entry phones access

  • Electronic card

7. Assist natural surveillance

  • Improved street lighting

  • Defensible space design

  • Support whistle-blowers

12. Remove targets

  • Removable car radio

  • Women's shelters

  • Pre-paid cards for pay phones

17. Avoid disputes

  • Separate seating for rival soccer fans

  • Reduce crowding in bars

  • Fixed cab fares

22. Post instructions

  • ‘No Parking’

  • ‘Private Property’

  • ‘Extinguish camp fires’
3. Screen exits

  • Ticket needed for exit

  • Export documents

  • Electronic merchandise tags

8. Reduce anonymity

  • Taxi-driver IDs

  • ‘How's my driving?’ deals

  • School uniforms

 13. Identify property

  • Property marking

  • Vehicle licensing and parts marking

  • Cattle branding

 Reduce temptation and arousal

  • Controls on violent pornography

  • Enforce good behaviour on soccer field

  • Prohibit racial slurs

 23. Alert conscience

  • Roadside speed display boards

  • Signatures for customs declarations

  • `Shoplifting is stealing’
4. Deflect offenders

  • Street closures

  • Separate facilities for women

  • Disperse pubs

9. Use place managers

  • CCTV for double-deck buses

  • Two clerks for convenience stores

  • Reward vigilance

14. Disrupt markets

  • Monitor pawn shops

  • Controls on classified ads

  • Licensed street vendors

19. Neutralize peer pressure

  • ‘Idiots drink and drive’

  • ‘It's OK to say No’

  • Disperse trouble-makers at school

24. Assist compliance

  • Easy library checkout

  • Public lavatories

  • Litter receptacles

5. Control tools/weapons

  • ‘Smart’ guns

  • Restrict spray-paint sales to juveniles

  • Toughened beer glasses

10. Strengthen formal surveillance

  • Red-light cameras

  • Burglar alarms

  • Security guards

15. Deny benefits

  • Ink merchandise tags

  • Graffiti cleaning

  • Disabling stolen cell phones

20. Discourage imitation

  • Rapid repair of vandalism

  • V-chips in TVs

  • Censor details of modus operandi

25. Control drugs and alcohol

  • Breathalysers in bars

  • Server intervention programs

  • Alcohol-free events

(Clarke, 2005, p. 46f.)

It is also worth mentioning Clarke’s demand that the judicial system should only be used as a last resort. The focus should be on natural strategies for situational crime prevention, so that it seems convenient and sensible for people in individual situations to behave in a legal manner. An example of this would be an appropriate parking policy aimed at preventing illegal parking.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The Routine Activity Theory can be appreciated as a theoretical basis for the first time no longer purely perpetrator-oriented concept of Situational Crime Prevention.

Their success in reducing crime has been proven in numerous studies. However, situational crime prevention has to face the criticism of offence shifting, after which crime does not decrease, but merely shifts to temporal, spatial, methodological and other dimensions. Critics also warn that by concentrating on situational factors, the actual root causes of crime remain untouched.

In addition, the routine activity approach suffers from the same weaknesses as the rational choice theory and the deterrence theories: because there, too, a rational and therefore deterrent person is assumed, but emotional, psychological, social and developmental factors are ignored.

Finally, it could be argued that situational criminal policy stands for a conservative world view characterized by the call for more surveillance and the exclusion of marginalized social groups. Moreover, the “clinical” view of crime as the result of inadequate protection against situational risks does not allow for an empathetic attitude toward crime victims (who, according to this view, have failed to “manage” the risks of crime sufficiently).

Literature

  • Clarke, R. V. (2005). Seven misconceptions of situational crime prevention. In: N. Tiiley (Ed.). Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety (pp. 39-70).  London: Routledge. URL: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781843926146.ch3
  • Clarke, R. V. & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers: In 60 small steps. Washington DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing.
  • Clarke, R. V. (1993): Routine activity and rational choice. New Brunswick, NJ.
  • Clarke, R. V. (1995): Situational crime prevention. In: Michael Tonry: Building a safer society: strategic approaches to crime prevention. Chicago.
  • Cohen, L. E.; Felson, M. (1979): Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44 (4), pp .588-608.

Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

 

Further Information

Rational Choice Theory

Criminology’s application of the Rational Choice Theory sees crime as the result of individual rational consideration of the expected benefits and costs of criminal activity.

Main Proponents

Gary S. Becker, Derek Cornish, Ronald Clarke, u.a.

Theory

The thesis of ‘Rational Choice’ is an economic, general theory of action. In general, this economic as well as social science approach states that all action is conditioned by goals, desires and needs as well as by the human attempt to realize these goals to the greatest possible extent. Thus, the greater the personal benefit and the lower the personal cost of an action, the more likely it is to be committed.

Since Rational Choice Theory is a general theory of action, benefits and costs are not limited to financial or other economic factors, but may also imply psychological or social benefits and costs. The pros and cons of an action are calculated and a decision is made for or against the action.

In criminology, this model of ‘rational choice’, which is generally based on action theory but is also implied in the classical school, was used to explain the phenomenon of crime or deviation. Accordingly, the probability of a delinquent act increases if the benefits of such an act outweigh the costs – for example, if the loot is estimated to be greater than the danger of being caught.

According to Cornish and Clarke, a distinction must also be made between general and situational decisions on criminal behaviour. People can thus be prepared in principle to commit crimes due to a high personal benefit expectation, but are still subject to situational factors (police presence, size of the loot, location of the possible crime) prior to the concrete action, among which they must again actively decide for the actual criminal act.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Since the theory of rational choice is based on the assumption of individual benefit maximisation, the task of criminal policy is to reward conformal behaviour in such a way and at the same time punish criminal behaviour in such a way that the former becomes more rational for the individual. Society, the state and its criminal law must therefore be conceived in such a manner that it is more benefit-maximizing, i.e. more rational for the individual, to prefer conformist action to criminal action.

In concrete terms, this means, firstly, that incentives for legal behaviour must be created. Secondly, access to criminal activity must be blocked in order to limit the decision-making situation from the outset to conforming alternatives. Thirdly, the rational choice theory calls for a deterrent criminal law.

It is thus closely linked to deterrence theories and – due to its close relationship to the Routine Activity Approach – to the concept of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

In the case of a theory that deals with the rationality of human beings, the first thing that certainly catches the eye is the lack of explanatory power for emotional, affective and impulsive actions. The classical “manslaughter” can hardly be justified with “rational choice”.

However, the theory of rational choice seems to make sense above all in the field of white-collar crime, since it is able to present the cost-benefit calculations carried out in managerial and executive circles in favour of deviant actions as the origin of criminal machinations.

However, the rational choice theory in its basic conception does not manage to explain crime beyond economic motives, because there is obviously much more than money for which (delinquent) action is worthwhile.

This is what a cost-benefit analysis of crime might look like (see: Becker, 1968: 201)

The subsequent attempt to expand the concept of utility to include non-financial, social and psychological aspects seems meaningful at first glance, but ultimately ends in a theoretical conception without any explanatory content. If one assumes that things are useful for one person that may be useless or even costly for the other, the decisive question that arises in the search for causes of action is what costs and benefits are actually for whom. It now suddenly seems much more important to examine the situational, personal and socialisation conditions responsible for these inconsistent definitions of costs and benefits.  Furthermore, it seems questionable whether the explanation of social interrelations and dynamics can at all be done justice by complex mathematical formulas. An equation like the one in the adjacent graph may be mathematically correct, but it is questionable whether the diversity of social action can ever be broken down in this way.

A rational cost-benefit calculation remains meaningless as long as it is not clear what is calculated at all or as long as one assumes that each individual calculates completely different benefit and cost factors. It should also be noted that rational choice theory makes no attempt to integrate social norms into its approach. However, these may also be responsible for the far-reaching differences in individual cost and benefit calculations. In short, the extended version of the theory of rational choice does not provide an explanation of crime, but merely describes a mechanism whose elements, however, cannot be firmly determined.

Furthermore, it must be criticized that the ‘rational choice’ approach only considers the presence of a rationally motivated perpetrator. The opportunity to commit a crime, for example the necessary presence of a victim, is not mentioned in this approach. At this point, the Routine Activity Approach can be referred to.

Literature